Since Japanese players also use yose to mean endgame, I'd give it up as a lost cause.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Answering my own question, I distinguish these basic types of invasions:

- splitting an extension along the side
- living and having to live inside an opposing sphere of influence with or near the first invasion stone
- living and having to live inside an opposing sphere of influence either a) with or near the first invasion stone or b) by sacrificing it and living elsewhere in that sphere
- living and having to live either a) inside an opposing sphere of influence or b) by running or connecting out
- creating an option by invading but temporarily playing elsewhere for either a) later living inside an opposing sphere of influence or b) allowing the opponent to kill
- hybrids of the cases above

Have I overlooked some cases? Would you prefer different classifications, which and why?

Yes, a very important one: the attacking invasion (or is this what you meant by point 1? Though it is common for an attacking invasion to split, sometimes it doesn't split but just removes the base.) Also you've not mentioned (though perhaps your 5 is a bit similar) what Yilun Yang calls a disrupting invasion, which is basically a nuisance invasion which you use to make profitable exchanges. You seem to be mainly focused on his third type, the territory destroying invasion.

In case of splitting an extension on the side, I consider it also an invasion. When the opposing formation is higher, I would "only" speak of "creating a large scale cut [e.g., for the purpose of attacking at least one opposing group]".

Ok, if you enter an opposing eyespace to reduce it to fewer than 2 eyes and so attack the group, it can be called an "attack" as well as an "invasion". An "invasion attack" or "attacking invasion":)



By location, it can be called an invasion. By purpose, I would call it a "sacrifice". So it is a "sacrifice invasion". (If sacrifice is only an option, then my type 5 is related indeed.)



Just because I tend to call the other kinds you mention large scale cut, attack or sacrifice. If you go strictly by location, then there are more types. There is also the "mochikomi invasion";)

Interesting topic!

A question for those knowlegeable: Do the words for invasion in Korean and Chinese reflect the "styles of play" we see in the different servers/opponents?

Since apparently Korean servers have very agressive opponents, could it be that the Korean language has words with different meanings for certain go terms that would justify that agressiveness?

(I amnot a linguist, and have not delved into the previously mentioned research.)

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

I don't know about the servers, but the words used in Korean and Chinese may well reflect differences.

The main Korean word is probably 침 입 하 다, which does have associations with aggression and can certainly be translated as "invasion" outside of go. Also seen is 쳐들ㅓ가 다 which is a little softer, and might best be rendered as "encroachment", but a translation outside of go as "invasion" would not be unreasonable.

Chinese is, I think, less aggressive. 打入 is common in go, and reasonably close to Japanese uchikomi, though it is used also to mean "infiltrate" outside of go. Also used is 投入 which commonly means "invest" but does have military uses such as "pour (troops) in".

The paradigm of increasing associations of aggression (if you believe any of this) would therefore be Japanese -> Chinese -> Korean, which perhaps fits reality.

Maybe at one point, I had well formed opinions about what makes something a feature of the language vs. just a matter of our habits. Today I don't.

So I'll just say that on the face of it, there's a significant difference between the ideas that John mentions and the strong claims that were originally made for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. One might attach a lot of theoretical baggage to that difference (and one might also argue that there's no real difference at all), but I'm not going to do so, beyond noting that it's there.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

It's 쳐들어가다, but the typo is not really related to your point.

_________________
be immersed