90% of the reason for this duration is having been busy writing the book Joseki 3. The reason for this delayed message is excessive SQL database problems of L19 earlier this morning.

Ok, thanks, and good job Robert!

The next question of course (to Robert) is: Why can those that understand the principle not apply it, and how could further articles give them the ability to apply the knowledge in an actual game?

I would not call it a "principle" but "the definition".

Strict application of the definition requires effort for recalling the more fundamental terms n-connection etc. correctly (i.e. not confuse 0- with 1-connection etc.). For that, one needs a bit of practice. The real effort though is to construct and imagine move-sequences, which can be used for assessing particular values. Furthermore a multi-step test can be necessary: E.g., if 0-connection turns out to false, then 1-connection needs to tested and approved. The next effort is application for each relevant intersection (of, e.g., a moyo boundary to see where the next best moyo reinforcement is) because influence can differ from intersection to its neighbour intersections. Furthermore both players' views are required. Finally influence changes dynamically from move to a game's next move. (Like connection or life and death status can be dynamic.) So the best application requires reevaluation every move and - even better - every imagined move of every imagined variation.



By giving more examples demonstrating application. (Now that was easy:) )

And this is ... hard. Which reminds me: Go is hard.

What becomes apparent when reading Robert's definition, is that influence stones have several (six?) functions, some or none or all of which, depending on the situation, they can hope to achieve. Being able to use them to one's best advantage is for those who don't follow Robert's method, a matter of skill.

To quote Haley from Modern Family, "If it was easy, everyone would be popular."



In my opinion, you give more than enough examples. What might have helped me to get on closer terms with some of your concepts would have been problems to test and improve my comprehension and judgment.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

When some time I write a book specialised in influence and thickness, I can do that in great detail. In Joseki 2, there has not been any space for problems or I would have had to split the book into two or more volumes. (Un)fortunately, there are other planned, more urgent books in my pipeline at the moment. karaklis wish list

viewtopic.php?p=91846#p91846

is also interesting but I cannot write several books at the same time, too bad...

For what it's worth, I had been basically stuck at 6k for over a year and had begun to consider the situation permanent before reading Robert's book. 6 weeks later, my rank has jumped at least one stone in all of my KGS accounts, and I have won about 65% of my ranked games as a 5k. While this does not directly relate to my use of influence, my better understanding of urgency as outlined on pages 99 - 102 (and summarized by me here) has had the general result that I find more fights taking place on my turf where it's easier to get some value out of the influential stones. Hence, daal's 1st principle of influence: The more the better.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

There are people who became professional strenth and never read any go books.
i will admit that it will help but nothing will be better than actual game with stronger players.
you dont need to study off books to understand go.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Presumably they exist. Which are they?



You belong to the only two players I have heard of for whom that might be (more or less) true. The other, according to a rumour, is Gilles van Eden, 6d.

Since you are a proponent of a (rather) book-less approach, can you also tell us how to use "playing only" or something like that for reaching amateur high dan or more?

Professional Seo bong-soo is one of them. during that time go books are not easy to get to.


actual game is always a better way to learn.
learning definitons of each term is not mandatory for you to get strong.

i always try to refrain myself from making comments on other people's game because i feel i am not qualified to do such.
but it seems that you feel you have a knowledge of go that far surpass other professionals and strong players and write a book about many useless definitons and telling them it is an essential knowledge.
i am trying to understand where you got that arogance.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

I'm not a fan of precise definitions for improvement purposes either, but I can definitely believe that for some players those are helpful.

There are probably many many different ways to improve, and if Robert's definition help players I don't see a problem. After all, while he's advocating his definitions and interpretations rather enthusiastically, it's not like he's forcing players to learn them :p

Playing alone not.



Who says "mandatory" or "definitions only"? :)



That is a difference between our two approaches: My knowledge enables me to teach while players with your approach never give really useful general advice and when asked for specifically that insist that they can't.



That I have a lot of superior methodical knowledge does not mean that they would not have other superior skills (such as reading life and death or endgame fast).



They are useful because they actually do explain things.



It is. It is because it enables teaching based on correct reasoning.



Better try to understand why it is not arrogance.

Out of curiosity, how can you be sure that you have "superior methodical knowledge" if you lose against your opponent?

_________________
be immersed

Kirby,

Having a lot of superior methodical knowledge (related to my published research, books etc.) does not mean 1) others cannot have a lot of other superior methodical knowledge, 2) others cannot have a lot of other superior unmethodical knowledge, 3) superior methodical knowledge about quite some topics would suffice for always winning and beating everybody, 4) finding superior methodical knowledge would enable me to have time for improving my go playing weaknesses simultaneously. In particular, so far my research has been about the weakest in my weakest go playing strength topics; I have plans to attack those topics but they are complicated because they (e.g., life and death problem solving in the general case and given short thinking time) involve a high density and number of decisions.

To answer your question more specifically, knowledge about my superior methodical knowledge being superior where it is comes from comparison with conveyed knowledge by everybody else incl. those that (can) beat me in playing go. For example:

- Prior vicious circle of rules and life / death: Was unresolved for centuries. I have solved it.
- Distinction of ko versus non-ko stones: Was unresolved for centuries. I have solved it.
- Capturing races: The best I have heard from stronger players ("one eye beats no eye", as has been regularly used by professionals in public teaching and in a frequently applied semeai proverb) is 1) a falsehood and 2) a tiny fraction of what my book explains.
- Influence / thickness (in their most frequent conceptual meanings of these words): It was very ambiguous what these concepts actually meant. I have provided an unambiguous explanation.
- Efficiency: For what was a mystery, I have shown a measure to calculate and compare it.
- Playing elsewhere: AFAIK, there is no second discussion with such a general scope of explanation for the middle game.
- Unsettled group average: What was possible only for the endgame or only for special case application like a basic ko, I have made more general for the middle game. As an approximation, it is not the final solution but you don't find something equally mighty, in particular also not players who can beat me in playing.
- Etc. (See my research papers and books).

Which would be the topic at hand.

If anything is unambiguous in go, it is secure territory. Go is won on points, and making territory secures points. Almost invariably, when securing territory, we do so at the cost of giving our opponent something on the outside, be it thickness or influential stones. In contrast to the stones forming territory, the outside stones provide only potential points which may or may not be realized. It would seem only natural for this to be harder to "get," but experience shows us again and again that this is the case. Putting all ones eggs in the territorial basket is a sure-lose strategy.

In Robert's unambiguous explanation of influence, he points out that the greater the proximity to influential stones, the more potent they are. I think that this is one of the reasons that influence is hard to "get." In the opening, when we play a 4th line stone, it tends not to be close to anything. Thus when played it often is doing next to nothing. It only becomes useful when the action starts moving in its direction. Influential stones are not child prodigies, but rather late bloomers who don't discover their purpose until they've become adults. Can be stressful for parents.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

What about exchanges? :)



This is only a guideline though.



I prefer to use a positive approach and assign purposes or a "game decision tree" of purposes before playing an influence stone. Such purposes can involved options, strategic offers and exchanges. Only when something happens I did not predict I need to correct and update associated purposes.

If I said that I solved all these problems/ambiguities/puzzles of my field (whether go or particle physics), it is arrogance.
If 1000 of my colleagues said I solved all these problems/ambiguities/puzzles of my field (whether go or particle physics), it is genius.
There are thousands of people out there saying that they have solved a bunch of problems and learned the mystery to this and that. I believe none of them unless I can find a bunch of people who agree with the assessment.
In my field, the smartest people who solve largest problems are the first to point out the flaws of their approach.
Thank you daal for pointing out how the book was useful to you.

Not who assesses findings matters but whether the findings and the assessment are correct. Genius is not void by means of the silence of the masses. When someone is asked to explain why his findings are superior (if they are) then that is not arrogance but revealing the truth. Am I proud of having created some superior knowledge? Yes. Does pride equal arrogance? No.

Instead of starting a meta-discussion about what arrogance or genius are, discuss the topics themselves, reveal the knowledge of others and compare it to my findings! The purpose of superior knowledge is not being buried in meta-discussion but revealed for the sake of application.



Why don't you assess truth or falsehood of such claims by yourself but rely on third persons, who might or might not be able to make good judgements? I can understand that for advanced research in science where you might miss the relevant education. Much of my go findings is suitable for an average player's understanding provided he invests some effort on the contents rather than on meta-discussion. Make that investment!



1) This requires the existence of flaws at all!

2) Since my research start in about 1996, I have shared much while doing research and pointed out many side conditions that might pose problems. When I noticed mistakes, usually I have pointed them out quickly or invited others to find and point out mistakes.

Aren't you the guy who sometimes starts the game with two random moves?

P.S. If anyone responds to 1)... I will personally bite off their head.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Usually my center moves (9-7 and such) are intentional. On rare occasions, I did play (almost) randomly though. I even didn't look directly at the board so that the only things I knew was 1) somewhere on the left / right half of the board, 2) neither first nor second line, 3) the second move is neither nobi or kosumi, 4) the opponent did not play close to the first move and 5) my second move is not close to the opposing move. With these conditions, any black opening is almost equally possible.