Robert, I suppose that we have a different understanding about the properties of nodes, and branches. In my understanding, the aspects that you described are properties of the branches.

E.g. "This move will result in a change in the order of moves of ..." is no element needed to decide which branch to choose.

The same is true for e.g. "This move exploits a cutting point created earlier.", or "This move occupies a Nakade's vital point."

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

Although in principle a tree's components can represent anything, the standard is that nodes represent positions (or situations) and the edges represent moves. In informatics, the common assignment of properties is to a node or an edge - usually not to a set of edges. Your use of "branch" is ambiguous; it sounds like a set of two (or more) edges leaving from the same node. However, maybe you mean "one particular edge", in which case I would speak of a particular move / sequence / subtree starting from a next move. If you really must, speak of a "branch variation" as a variation leaving the particular branching position.

Indeed "This move will result in a change in the order of moves of ..." is no element[?] needed to decide which branch [variation] to choose. Tactical reading can do without "This move will result in a change in the order of moves of ..."...:) Tactical reading does not make predictions of what will happen but analyses moves and sequences to determine what DOES happen and then, after related reading, state that a particular move DOES (in this case apparently you mean) revert an already known position. We can then assign to this move the result of the reverted position. (But we can probably forget the detail of a different move order.)

Whether "This move exploits a cutting point created earlier." is needed to decide which branch variation to choose can depend on the aim(s) of the problem's starting position. Maybe the aim is "to exploit a particular cutting point" and reading shall determine whether the particular cutting point can, or cannot, be exploited? (Supposing we know what "exploit" means.)

"This move occupies a Nakade's vital point." more likely is an ill-formulated feature of a terminal position. Suppose the problem's aim (as a very special form of life and death problem) is to decide if the player can establish his stone on some nakade's vital point. At a branching position, we can assign to some next move whether it leads to success or failure WRT his task.

I see. Thank you.

So I suppose the action items here for me are:
* Do more go problems.
* Read your theory book.

_________________
be immersed

The sheer number of problems exercised might not do it; I suggest you also exercise those that you do more carefully and with achieving a better understanding (while applying theory).

Well, I must admit, I don't know much theory. The only thing I can think of at the moment is what Inseong refers to as "1-2-3 reading". Basically, when doing a life and death problem, try a simple first move from the outside to reduce eyespace. If the opponent has a refutation at position X, then try reading the problem by starting at move X.

It isn't something that works 100% of the time, but I do think it's helpful in guiding my search for a solution.

_________________
be immersed

Dear Robert, sorry, but I will stop here.

I have the vague feeling that your theory makes mice elephants, and is hyping the self-evident.

And that it is NOT about "reading" (as understood by the usual Go player), but about "diciding", and "accumulation of knowledge" while / through reading.

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

Any good reading theory must build on the "obvious" basics. Nothing hurts reading more than neglecting them. A clear view on the basics is required for the "obvious" to work efficiently.

You seen to want keeping separate in terminology 'decision-making' ('deciding') and 'accumulation of knowledge' from 'reading', where presumably you mean imagining and constructing moves and sequences when saying 'reading'. We need to clarify what you mean by 'knowledge'. Is this the knowledge of which moves, sequences and their outcomes are being discovered while performing reading? I use 'knowledge' with a different meaning: one's learnt knowledge of theory etc. Instead of your 'accumulation of knowledge', I prefer to speak of (accumulation, if you like, of) 'information'. The problem with using the word knowledge when exploring variations is the ambiguity of the word. So please understand that below I speak of information instead of knowledge. So you want to keep separate in terminology the a) exploration of variations from the b) decision-making and information gathering.

Why?

Although, for the sake of it, one can choose whichever terminology one wants, I prefer to include everything under the term 'reading' because everything is involved and depends on each other. In other study fields, such as opening, endgame or whatever, we also do not separate methods of the opening or calculations for the endgame from either. In the study field of 'reading', even if one wanted (as you seem) to separate decision-making and information gathering in one's terminology, one must immediately overcome such a separation and combine a) exploration of variations with b) decision-making and c) information gathering. So the purpose of any artificial separation by terminology remains unclear.

A meta-discussion of what the "usual go player" understands under the tag 'reading' does not change this.

Reading for the sake of determining a problem's correct solution(s) involves (a), (b) and (c) even if one's terminology tries to pretend (b) and (c) would be separate. Except for the most trivial problems, reading does not determine a correct solution without incorporating (b) and (c).

And if everything had been as self-evident as you claim, you would not support an artificial separation. Part of the basics of reading theory is: (a), (b) and (c) are all needed in an integrative manner.

Is this a) reading the most interesing move first, then the 2nd, then the 3rd most interesting moves etc., (a good reading principle) b) reading move 3 before move 1 as a tesuji technique (not anything like a general reading theory but very specialised and often wrong) or c) something else?

Every problem becomes the more "trivial" the more we reach the final stages of the sequences. However, the more complicated a problem is, the more onion skins "hide" the relevant hints at the very beginning.

Once we have "really solved" a problem, we know it's entire variation tree. As I already wrote, decisions at all the nodes are quite trivial then: "Choose the branch that enforces the best fulfillment of the problem's aim."

But quite apparently, this is not what you do have in mind with your "reading theory". It seems to me that, with your "reading theory", you want to accomplish the following:

"In a state of incomplete information, come the solution as close as possible with the least possible effort."


As a matter of course, in order to accomplish this feat, you will have to gather information -- at every single node of a "really solved" problem -- about the characteristics of the position reached, as well as about the initial moves of the following branches.

You will have to analyse these information, in order to extract some kind of "knowledge", which might have helped you before (or in similar problems / situations thereafter) to decide on the move(s) that you want to evaluate in the first instance (the "most interesting move(s)", as you called it).

This implies that you want to create tools, with which one is able to prune a variation tree "successfully", although this is only partially seen.

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

It does not help us much that a) variations become the easier the more they approach terminal positions (because we still need to read on and compare with other variations) and b) an already completely read variations tree allows easy interpretation (because, except for the trivial problems, we can never construct such a complete tree. Therefore, yes,

"With incomplete information, approach the solution as closely as possible with the least possible effort."

reasonably characterises (my / good) reading theory. However, for local problems, it is almost always possible to formulate an aim so that reading determines whether the aim is either fulfilled or rejected. (Such as in "Are these two strings connected?" or "Is this group alive?".) The 'least possible effort' is an ideal but in practice it often is impossible because we do not know a priori which moves permit the least reading. Therefore, 'approaching' the ideal is what we can hope for.

Despite incomplete information, my reading theory maintains the feature of 'correctness'. Two principles for that are: "Ignore obvious failures." and "In case of doubt, consider each interesting next move.". I.e., if a move's failure is not obvious, verifying the move can be necessary. Immaterial variations may be pruned but interesting and unclear (whether immaterial or interesting) variations must be considered.

Your suggestion to gather information at every single node is bad and very inefficient. It suffices to gather information at the terminal positions, branching positions and the start position! Of course, my theory proposes the latter (with further simplifications).

Yes, information must be analysed to draw conclusions for the problem's aim.

Yes, "This implies that you want to create tools, with which one is able to prune a variation tree 'successfully', although this is only partially seen". The tools are methods and principles to be applied.

EDITs

Where do you know from that a node is NOT a branching position ?

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

Such a (non-terminal) node has exactly one interesting next move and all the other moves are, without doubt, obvious failures or obviously inferior.

I would like to assume that we start studying "reading" with simple / trivial problems. Therefore, I doubt your conclusion to a), just because we will stop "reading", when we have reached an already known position.

In his postscript to Igo Hatsuyôron, Inoue Dôsetsu Inseki declares that the number of move sequences in NOT infinite. So, “there will in the end be nothing you cannot see”. Therefore -- in combination with a) -- I also doubt your conclusion to b).


In principle, I would also like to assume that -- in your concept -- you largely underestimate the importance of "shape" (i.e. "position"). It was Inoue Dôsetsu Inseki again, who stated that the more you understand about "sequences", the more it will be absolute necessary to further study "shape".


And Dôsetsu finished his postscript by noting that if you were unable to find a solution, you simple have not grasped the right approach.

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

You really want to claim that your theory is based on such unsteady terms like "interesting", and "obvious" ?

Quite apart from this, with our earlier steps on the path of "reading" (here: in the sense of "solving Tsume-Go") we will have accumulated some knowledge, which enables us to evaluate these unsteady terms. So, in the very beginning of our path, every node had been a decision point.


By the way: If something can be stated to be "without doubt", it will lose its property of being "obvious" only.

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

Well, it works like I described, so you can interpret what you'd like from it. Maybe my description wasn't clear.

But my feeling is that this is the process:
1. Read the "normal" move first.
2. If the opponent has a good response, it's possible that it's a 'key move'.
3. Try playing the 'key move' first, and it might have better result.

Applied to life and death problems, the "normal" move is to reduce eyespace. The opponent may have a good defense, though. It's possible that their response to the first move should be played first.

Doesn't always work, but sometimes it helps in finding the answer.

_________________
be immersed

Catalin Taranu's version:

Think about playing "3" first.

Might be that the "1"-"2"-exchange is not really necessary beforehand, or even hurts.

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

Learning by problems only should start with simple problems and proceed to more difficult problems. (My) general theory is applicable to every problem - simple or difficult, so you need not have doubts about (a) or reaching already known positions.

Finite or inifinite calculation does not depend on Dosetsus (in this respect limited) insight but on the rules. (Not that it matters in practice;) )

In order to get rid of your doubt about my conclusion (b), take a problem of intermediate difficulty, write down the complete tree, and after a hundred years you find that you do not have enough time for doing so despite finity;)

I do not underestimate shape but I also do not overestimate it:

1) It cannot be said often enough that VERY similarly looking shapes can have VERY different behaviours. The literature is full of examples.

2) The more I have studied problems carefully the more I realise that shape considerations tend to be unimportant. Of course, one must see all the shape tesujis; but do you also know where this ends? In advanced problems, every intersection provides a shape tesuji; there is no point in calling them tesujis - simply consider each interesting next move! There is one application of shapes in local problems that is really useful (AFA it can be applied): as a database of terminal local positions with known outcomes; if you know 100,000, you can end deeper reading a bit earlier on average than if you know only 10,000. Achieving this extra step of knowledge by heart is useful for strong dan players. For weaker players, basic reading theory does enough of the job if one's knowledge of terminal shapes includes some hundreds of nakades and a few standard shapes (such as arising in josekis or simple shapes occurring frequently in practice). If you want to see more in shapes and rely on Dosetsu, also show us his justification and explanation beyond what I write in this paragraph. Further shape study beyond that is not "absolutely necessary" but can also be achieved by slightly deeper reading.

To not find a solution can mean "not grasping the right approach" (Dosetsu), giving up prematurely while using a valid approach, or being unable to read broadly and deeply.

I do state that my theory is also based on the ambiguous terms "interesting" and "obvious", as I do state that my theory is also based on unambiguous components. While I condemn intuition as an excuse for not explaining things, the ambiguity I use in my theory has the flexibility to fall back to unambiguity whenever needed: "In case of doubt, consider EACH interesting next move." (And if "interesting" is ambiguous, consider, if necessary due to inapplicable simplifications, each local next move if the problem is local.) Reading by humans does not need the perfection of formal mathematical proofs or the algorithmic accuracy of expert system programs. One does not need to consider long lists of detailed principles (such as "Do not fill your own territory elsewhere on the board if the problem is local and a ko cannot occur.") but an "obvious failure" is good enough to exclude, e.g., such moves. Reading has lots of things that require meticulous thinking, so it is also important to save time whenever possible. For obvious failure moves, time can be saved easily. Of course, one must not repeat the frequent mistake of the past to pretend to oneself that a highly unusual move (such as an early 1st line move) would be an obvious failure just because of being highly unusual. One must not forget the other, aforementioned principle.

In fact, unpruned complexity of local problems is so extraordinarily great that ambiguous, fast pruning of obvious failures and the like is essential at every imagined position and the problem's current position. - If there is the slightest doubt, do not prune a move yet.

Yes, a go beginner is faced with the greater reading problem that each moment lets each legal move appear interesting. The beginner has a good sense of having doubts when skipping moves.

Kirby, that 1-2-3 tool is one of the few things professionals do like to teach verbally. Unfortunately, it is not so useful, except maybe like a proverb for a 5 kyu giving his thinking a bit greater flexibility to think in a way he has not considered before.

Sorry, but

"giving up prematurely while using a valid approach, or being unable to read broadly and deeply" are examples of not having the right approach.


Concerning your apparently deep aversion to "shapes" / "positions" (at least you seem to regard these as worth less than "sequences"):
Dôsetsu writes in his postscript to Igo Hatsuyôron that it will become extremely difficult to reach perfection without harmony between "shapes" / "positions", and "sequences". And I think that he is right with his statement. Relying too much on "sequences" means that one has not yet sufficient understood "shapes" / "positions".



We can be very, very sure that Dôsetsu was very aware of your concern. Igo Hatsuyôron #120, Inoue Dôsetsu Inseki's life-time masterpiece, has several decisive elements of this type, and as such very well hidden before professional eyes.

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

I am not 5k, but I still find it useful. I agree that it doesn't always work, but it gives me a map in solving problems. When faced with a problem for which I do not know where to start, it gives a systematic ordering that I can use for searching.

I find this useful, because otherwise, I would have no systematic way of searching for the next move (my choice would be arbitrary).

It doesn't always work, but I do think that it has improved my KGS 1k/1d mind's flexibility.

_________________
be immersed

Catalin said (with regard to his version, which has a similar effect) that this kind of "tool" may serve you well to make you thinking about (at least) an alternate move.

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