topazg,

I don't know, that's why I said I wasn't sure (PS Actually, I wasn't asking about , I was asking about how White eventually addresses the area)



Hahaha, indeed, this is very true. Isn't Go fun

Perhaps you should re-read John's second post. I believe that Ed's point (and John's) is that kyu failure is often simply an attitude problem. In our zeal to "punish," we tend not to be like Shuko, satisfied with making an opponents moves sub-optimal, but rather we tend to over-react to the overplay thus doing ourselves harm. The semantics indeed play a role insofar as they can indicate the difference between a raging bull and a man with a sword.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Interesting difference of interpretation of words - For me, "...at some point, a punishment needs to be played to take advantage of Black's audacity..." and "how is 17 bad - what makes it bad and how does White guarantee that, by the end of the game, a comparative profit has been made due to the move?" are synonymous. By making a profit at the end of the game, even due to subtle advantages borne out of a misplaced stone that bears fruition 150 moves later, Black's audacity has been punished. Is there a general vibe with the word "punish" that implies to people a sense of immediacy? If so, I'll have to stop using the word, as it's more likely than I'd realised to give the wrong impression of my intent with its usage.

Probably they are when you say it - but were they my words, they would mean entirely different things.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

And, judging on the recent discussion, I would hazard a guess that I'm the one in the minority. I'll think about some better terminology for when I update the post

Some of the discussion here is similar to viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5332. I wonder how long it will be until Robert Jasiek extols the virtues of n-Connection .

About getting derailed by diagrams, yes I knew the text rather than diagrams were the focus, but it is easier to talk about moves than a difficult concept such as influence! Maybe I will do one of my fortnightly Shodan Challenge lectures on this topic...

I think that the appreciation of outside influence is fairly modern. The earliest example I have found is from 1628. Here is the game with some sportscaster type comments.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Some thoughts on the difference between overplay and underplay...

I agree. Actually, I think that's precisely the K16 issue ( ), and that's one of the reasons I suspect the way White has to handle it comes prior to the end of the fuseki. I suspect that Black can make it a reasonable move without too much additional effort - I'm just not entirely sure, hence my questions about punishment

EDIT: Actually, this is one of the things I really like about chess, or more specifically chess notation, which often uses the following:

?? - An outright blunder
? - A mistake, possibly serious
?! - A questionable but unclear move, may even be good but likely to be a mistake
!? - An interesting move that is likely to give advantage, but often complicated or unclear
! - A good move
!! - An excellent move

I suspect a lot of overplays are of the ?! variety, and a whole number of opportunities can arise to come up with a good result without correct play by the opponent. I suspect this is the sort of overplay a professional employs when behind and finding ways to complicate, either to find a place to resign, or to claw back a bleak position.

See the general definition in Joseki 2 Strategy.



Apply my definition and you don't have a problem with the 1-1: Its influence aspect on making additional territory is marginal.



Such a rough and misleading thought is for the history books. Now thickness is defined in the aforementioned book by its connection, life and territory aspects.

Note the difference between influence (property of an intersection) and thickness (property of a stone or group of stones). Therefore thickness is NOT an accumulation of influence!

Ambiguous translations from the past do not help us. Maybe what was being meant is the influence created by a group of thick(ness) stones?



This does not come from computer go. CG tried some extraordinarily rough influence map models, but you might as well have guessed values of influence. The "second" (I say: only) sense of influence, which can also be considered rather independently of the cause (the thickness etc.), as the property of empty (or not empty) intersections could be seen on a level of intuitive usage in various books. It was ambiguous though with no precise values because nobody could define it, until I did last year.



Rather every connection or life degree of influence can be also negative. (Whether territory becomes negative depends on how territory is inserted in the influence definition. E.g., by convention white territory could be expressed by negative numbers.)



There is no reason not to understand influence now: Just refer to my definition. What can remain difficult though is practical application of the exact degrees at each intersection. Such is often not necessary though. It suffices to understand roughly which intersections are, e.g., 0- or 1-connected.



Thomas Wolf thinks that my definition now provides a different reason: It requires too much calculation power. Therefore for computers he suggests some static approximation; it is in one of his papers. Oh, didn't you proofread that one? I dislike such rough approximations though because one can never really be sure whether the values are calculated well or badly.



Rather it is very rough. Instead n-connection and m-life values provide precise degrees.



Oh. Why reinvent the wheel? Simply apply my existing definition! (I knew you'd better read my book. :) ) Or is your research about application of influence?

Out of interest Robert, may I ask (if you are aware of this) what percentage of non-mathematician players that have read your book, with a skill level between 2k and 10k, understand your definition of the value of influence?

Not any more. Now it is a simple application of its general, formal definition.



For that, fuzzy approach is not good enough.

The book provides three models. I think the first two should be understood by every serious reader. The second I have summarised at Sensei's. The third and theoretical, that is the precise model requires a prior understanding of the concepts n-connection, m-alive, t-territory. Since I give both extraordinarily simple examples and then ordinary shape examples, every serious reader (in that rank range) has a good chance of understanding. The theoretical influence definition itself is pretty dry though. I guess if somebody only looks at it without first understanding the mentioned terms, then he understands nothing. It would be like trying to understand influence before trying to understand connection and life. So the first effort is an understanding that influence is a second level concept, which relies on the fundamental concepts of connection, life and territory. The second effort then is trying to determine actual degrees in practice.

Mathematics for influence is almost elementary school level, except that also logical thinking is suitable.

Another chapter of my book (Unsettled Group Average) uses slightly more advanced maths: some very basic algebra in the form of two simple formulas. There I have really doubts whether every reader can understand that (or even much worse: related information at Sensei's).

Can't you just abandon strength as a separate concept?

Pls be kind, Robert

cyclops, eh? The kindness lies in the simplification: Use only one concept instead of two concepts. Then usage will be easier!

5 days, 11 hours, 25 minutes.

I can corroborate this. Robert's definition provides a reader of my strength (and lack of mathematical background) with an adequate handle on the concept. To paraphrase his definition (which can be read here): influence is the degree to which live outside stones help friendly stones connect, live and make territory, and hinder the opponent's stones from doing the same. In his more thorough 3rd definition, he specifies the degrees of connectedness, life and secure territory, and although I couldn't imagine trying to apply it, it is not hard to understand.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.