How to judge a book

RobertJasiek · **#41**

TMark wrote:

take the views of a cross-section of readers who are his/her target audience. It also helps when the organisations having an overview of Go produce unbiased reviews for their members to read.

This is a possible approach in theory. In practice, the go community is too small to get a representative cross-section of target readers. Almost one has to be happy if a book is reviewed at all:)

Dusk Eagle · **#42**

I didn't mean to imply that I think learning only by examples is the best possible way, but I do find it quite hard to learn without examples. If you just gave me the principle "When defending a corner, choose the biggest move so that then the opponent cannot invade to create reasonable life, create a ko, create a seki or get better endgame than ordinary reduction from the outside," I would have a tough time applying that. Whereas when I look at the example problems, I can develop a feeling for the principle being taught. Explaining the principle in words is certainly helpful when combined with the examples, especially to ensure that one has gained a full understanding of the principles.

If anyone here has ever tried to learn Esperanto from lernu.net, one approach to teaching I really like is the way the Beginner's course Bildoj kaj Demandoj is taught. You are given several examples of dialogue referring to a picture, and then are asked questions in Esperanto which can be answered given that you understood the example dialogue they give you. After driving home a particular concept (such as use of the word kia), they then explain in English the principles behind which you just learned, to clear up any confusion. (Whether the principle comes before the examples or after isn't too important to me.)

In short, I would much rather read a Go book with just examples than a Go book with just principles and no examples, even if neither extreme approach is ideal. I could at least know I would learn something from the former approach.

karaklis · **#43**

Dusk Eagle wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that I think learning only by examples is the best possible way, but I do find it quite hard to learn without examples. If you just gave me the principle "When defending a corner, choose the biggest move so that then the opponent cannot invade to create reasonable life, create a ko, create a seki or get better endgame than ordinary reduction from the outside," I would have a tough time applying that. Whereas when I look at the example problems, I can develop a feeling for the principle being taught. Explaining the principle in words is certainly helpful when combined with the examples, especially to ensure that one has gained a full understanding of the principles.

Thanks, Dusk Eagle, that's exactly how I feel when reading such principles. To add to that, examples must be well chosen for the target audience. When I had a look at Robert's examples including the explanations, I was asking questions to myself like "Ok, if there is still aji left, how is it possible to exploit that? If the invader can make a ko, how can he make it? etc.". In order to understand and apply the principles and the examples above, profound tactical knowledge is needed. But this can only be expected in the dan ranks. If the audience are DDKs and weak to mid-SDKs such principles and examples would probably not be very helpful.

jts · **#44**

Not to derail the discussion - but can anyone who has bought part of the Fujisawa Tesuji dictionary tell me, are its tesuji primarily of the "this is awesome" variety or the positional judgment variety?

What I mean is, there are some tesuji where you look at a position and say, "there's absolutely no way for Black to kill/cut/capture/connect/etc. It's just impossible." And then lo and behold, there is a tesuji that shocks you. But there is another whole class of tesuji where what's counter-intuitive isn't Black's next move, but the fact that the end position is desirable for Black. In a tesuji problem, the awesome tesuji are normally introduced by some concrete goal (B to connect, B to cut, B to gain endgame profit), whereas the positional judgment tesuji are often introduced with "What is B's best result?" or "What can B do in this position?"

hyperpape · **#45**

jts wrote:

Not to derail the discussion - but can anyone who has bought part of the Fujisawa Tesuji dictionary tell me, are its tesuji primarily of the "this is awesome" variety or the positional judgment variety?

I can't stand books that mix these, which really limits the books I can enjoy.

crux · **#46**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Answer 1 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . X . O . . $$ | . . . X . . . b . $$ | . . 1 . . . a . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . d . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O c . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

This looks absolutely awful to my eyes, and I'd rather lose the game than make a move like this. It seems fit for a definition of overconcentration though.

A quick check with kombilo/GoGoD shows that in 73 occurrences of the pattern, Black never played your move (it is played 9 times by White). The most common response appears to be tenuki for Black, followed by some kind of leaning move like a, b or c. The move at d also occurs, but more often when White already has one additional stone.

prokofiev · **#47**

RobertJasiek wrote:

prokofiev,

the principle is far from obvious. It is much easier to use (or have intuitive understanding with the same effect as) a principle like "If you reinforce a corner, choose the biggest move.". Actually a great percentage of amateur players think like that and make these locally wrong moves because they equate and confuse visually big with factually big:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Problem 1 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . X . O . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . 1 . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Problem 2 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . X . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Problem 3 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . X . O . $$ | . X . X . . . . . $$ | . O 3 . . . . . . $$ | . 4 O 1 5 . . . . $$ | . . . 2 . . . . . $$ | . . . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Then quite some low dans notice that they suffer from aji and make moves like these in an attempt of improvement:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Problem 1 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . X . O . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . 1 . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Problem 2 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . X . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Professional can't believe just how creative amateurs can be in making half-half moves instead of playing honte immediately.

karaklis · **#48**

jts wrote:

Not to derail the discussion - but can anyone who has bought part of the Fujisawa Tesuji dictionary tell me, are its tesuji primarily of the "this is awesome" variety or the positional judgment variety?

Can you really separate this? What would count under "positional judgment"? solidifying a base? managing stones lightly? taking sente? developing? taking away the base?
Well all these are part of the tesuji dictionary. Just have a look at the SL page. Btw, a lot of the tesujis also appear in "501 Tesuji Problems", so if you have that, you can judge yourself.

hyperpape · **#49**

Almost all the tesuji problems in James Davies' book are "this is awesome", if I remember correctly. They cut, kill, connect, or something like that. 501 Tesuji Problems is a mix.

jts · **#50**

karaklis wrote:

jts wrote:

Not to derail the discussion - but can anyone who has bought part of the Fujisawa Tesuji dictionary tell me, are its tesuji primarily of the "this is awesome" variety or the positional judgment variety?

Can you really separate this? What would count under "positional judgment"? solidifying a base? managing stones lightly? taking sente? developing? taking away the base?
Well all these are part of the tesuji dictionary. Just have a look at the SL page. Btw, a lot of the tesujis also appear in "501 Tesuji Problems", so if you have that, you can judge yourself.

If I understand correctly, SL lists the classifications of tesuji, not the tesuji themselves.

No doubt there's a continuum, but in practice I don't think there's much difficulty distinguishing between them. Take sente, for example. If it seems that it's impossible to (say) live in sente, then a tesuji to take sente is awesome. If there are two variations with the same outcome in all respects except that in one variation you come away with sente, the tesuji that leads to the sente variation is probably awesome. If it's clear that there are variations that end in sente and variations that end in gote, but it's hard to decide which one is best, then the "tesuji" that allows you to, say, die in sente, or lose a capturing race in sente, or sacrifice stones in sente, or create cutting points in your position in sente, pertains to positional judgment.

One of these falls very clearly into one category, one into the other. Or do you disagree?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Black to move $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . O O O O O . . . $$ | . X O X X X O . . $$ | . X X O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Black to play $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | X X X O X . . . . $$ | O O O O X X . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . $$ | O . X X O . . . . $$ | . . . . O . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . O . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

RobertJasiek · **#51**

karaklis wrote:

I was asking questions to myself like "Ok, if there is still aji left, how is it possible to exploit that? If the invader can make a ko, how can he make it? etc.".

prokofiev wrote:

the main stumbling block for me in answering the problems you gave was not the principle itself but the details of how to implement it in each case.

Sure. This thread is not a book and does not have its quality. In a book, I would give also variations for the aji etc.

Quote:

I also imagine your principle would show up or be implied in an example-oriented book. Take the second problem for example. I imagine the brief text under the solution in an example-oriented book would explicitly or implicitly be your principle

Never. Never are example-orientated books that good with principles, even if hidden in example comment texts.

RobertJasiek · **#52**

karaklis wrote:

profound tactical knowledge is needed.

It helps but the basics even a 5 kyu can see: ko in the corner after 3-3 or the like.

RobertJasiek · **#53**

crux wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Answer 1 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . X . O . . $$ | . . . X . . . b . $$ | . . 1 . . . a . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . d . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O c . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

This looks absolutely awful to my eyes [...] overconcentration

It eliminates the 3-3 aji even if White gets more stones at expected distance on the outside during the middle game. Then with only one - already played - play all the reasonably possible 3-3 aji is eliminated.

It also maintains a good connection with the black stone below.

If instead Black took one or two points more, then the 3-3 aji would not be properly eliminated completely; i.e. later Black might need to play another stone.

Quote:

I'd rather lose the game than make a move like this.

Use sum-fuseki then;)

Quote:

A quick check with kombilo/GoGoD shows that in 73 occurrences of the pattern, Black never played your move (it is played 9 times by White).

Statistics prove nothing.

Quote:

The most common response appears to be tenuki for Black,

Sure, but the topic was to reinforce, i.e. the assumption was that tenuki is currently not the best.

Quote:

followed by some kind of leaning move like a, b or c. The move at d also occurs

Such moves can be made when global considerations override the local-only consideration. a, b, c can aim at attacking the other of the two white stones. d can aim at attacking White on a large scale in the hope of killing all later White corner invasions. Such global considerations are not the scope of my problem though; I have shown only the corner for that reason; quite like a local problem in a book would.

pwaldron · **#54**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Problem 2 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . X . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I would be interested to see this ko sequence. Are you sure there's nothing better?

RobertJasiek · **#55**

pwaldron wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Problem 2 $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . X . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I would be interested to see this ko sequence.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko I $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . 8 . . . . . $$ | . 7 . 5 6 . . . . $$ | . . 1 2 . . X . . $$ | . . 3 X . . . . . $$ | . . 4 . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko II $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . 7 . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 3 4 . X . . $$ | 8 5 2 X . . . . . $$ | . 6 . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko III $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . 8 . . . . . $$ | . 7 . 5 6 . . . . $$ | . . 1 2 . . X . . $$ | . . 3 X . . . . . $$ | . . 4 . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

For the continuations, see the RGG thread "joseki question" Message-ID: <f1952f55-ef53-46d2-b0bb-22ea73650423@m13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>

Quote:

Are you sure there's nothing better?

Considering that of dozens of professionals teaching at EGCs and commenting on this topic all have said that usually White should invade immediately to create a ko shape (for immediate or later ko playing), yes.

SoDesuNe · **#56**

jts wrote:

Not to derail the discussion - but can anyone who has bought part of the Fujisawa Tesuji dictionary tell me, are its tesuji primarily of the "this is awesome" variety or the positional judgment variety?

I just read the second volume about Tesujis for defending but here I can say, they all come with a very clear objective. Of course there are some problems where you are e.g. asked to defend a cutting point and by chosing the right move, you simultanously offer your opponent a trade which will a) eliminate the cut in the process and which is b) at least equal in its result.

And - sure - a lot of the solutions are just awesome. Never would have guessed those ^^

pwaldron · **#57**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Considering that of dozens of professionals teaching at EGCs and commenting on this topic all have said that usually White should invade immediately to create a ko shape (for immediate or later ko playing), yes.

White can actually live unconditionally here, although the path looks like it is setting up a ko.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko? $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . 1 2 . . X . . $$ | . . 3 X . . . . . $$ | . 5 4 7 . . . . . $$ | . 6 8 . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko? $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . 4 . . . . . $$ | . 3 . 1 2 . . . . $$ | . . O X . . X . . $$ | 5 . O X . . . . . $$ | . O X O . . . . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko? $$ ------------------ $$ | . 2 4 X . . . . . $$ | 5 O 3 O X . . . . $$ | . 6 O X . . X . . $$ | 1 . O X . . . . . $$ | . O X O . . . . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Life $$ ------------------ $$ | . X X X 7 . . . . $$ | O O O O X 4 . . . $$ | . X O X 1 3 X . . $$ | O . O X 2 5 . . . $$ | . O X O 6 . . . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

RobertJasiek · **#58**

Nice variation but tiny gote life while making Black extra thick at a game moment when the original position was in the (early?) middle game is worse than establishing a ko shape for the entire corner territory's and black stability's fate.

RobertJasiek · **#59**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Tiny gote life, B thick $$ ------------------ $$ | . X X X . . . . . $$ | O O O O X . . . . $$ | . 2 O X . . X . . $$ | O . O X . . . . . $$ | . O X O 1 . . . . $$ | b X X . . . . . . $$ | a . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Later a or b will be sente. The result is as terrible as creating the following invasion shape early in the middle game and living immediately:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Tiny gote life, B thick $$ ------------------ $$ | . 1 . a . . . . . $$ | O . b O X . . . . $$ | . O O X X . X . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Later Black a - b reduces White to 2 points. Again White gaining tiny gote life early during the middle game is a mistake. Instead White should play tenuki instead of 1.

Since living in gote early during the middle game is too small, tenuki is better:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Tenuki, B thick $$ ------------------ $$ | . X X X . . . . . $$ | O O O O X . . . . $$ | . . O X . . X . . $$ | O . O X . . . . . $$ | . O X O 1 . . . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Better than playing elsewhere from this is playing elsewhere from the following:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko I $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . O . O X . . . . $$ | . . O X . . X . . $$ | . . O X . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

White waits until the ko is small enough and he has enough threats, then creates the following shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko I follow-up I $$ ------------------ $$ | . O O X X . . . . $$ | . O X . X . . . . $$ | . . O X . . X . . $$ | . O O X . . . . . $$ | . O X O a . . . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . $$ | . . X . b . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

White's life will be better than your tiny gote life variation and Black might have to end in gote at a or b. Note that Black has not even got a ko threat elsewhere. If Black does not connect on the first line but takes a (too small) ko threat elsewhere (too small because White will have had enough ko threats to force Black to take something too small), then White will get this shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko I follow-up II $$ ------------------ $$ | . . O . O . . . . $$ | . O . O X . . . . $$ | . . O X . . X . . $$ | . . O X . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Now Black's group is unstable and White has much better life than in your tiny gote variation.

Hence all those professionals at EGCs were right!

Dusk Eagle · **#60**

One thing I'm confused about - why invade immediately? Why not just save the variation that gets you to the point below in your back pocket until you are ready to fight the ko?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Ko I $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . O . O X . . . . $$ | . . O X . . X . . $$ | . . O X . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

How to judge a book

Who is online