Because the stone difference is the major measure indicating whether a sequence's result should be about equal, should be favourable for a particular player or should be very clearly favourable for a particular player.



A joseki learner does not find it obvious at all! An experienced player will easily identify a result that should have the stone difference 2, but will still have some difficulty to distinguish stone differences 0 from 1. Knowing what stone difference a pattern should have does not need to be the same as what the actual stone difference is. Determining the stone difference then can reveal hamete, trick play or other unduely favourable result.

(Stone difference is also a basic input for the territory and influence ratio explained in the book. Stone difference is also relevant outside josekis for efficiency considerations, and a relevant information for tewari.)



1) For josekis: it is the easiest, fastest determined comparable measure of influence; it becomes very useful in the book's new theory.

2) In the middle game: it is extremely useful for determining center domination or other superior influence on a moyo or global scale.



(Influence stone difference measures also influence stones, not only thickness.)

For the purpose (1), influence stone difference can be determined either for an idealising case of having only a joseki shape in a corner (then the joseki territory / influence ration theory is applicable) or in a more global scale (but then the specific local joseki evaluation theory is not applicable).

For other purposes such as (2), the scale of consideration can be chosen, e.g., as the whole board.

So, by restricting the scope of scale, specific tools are enabled. If one wants to know other things (e.g., strategic context in adjacent corners or applicability of strategic choices available for a joseki of a particular functional type such as 'quick settling'), one would then choose a different scale.



It tells us, to start with the definition, that its defender can pass (or play unrelated elsewhere) twice before having to start his local defense play in the alternating sequence of attack started by the opponent.

As a consequence (and if connection is similar), the group is very thick. I.e., one can drive opposing running groups to it without easily having to worry about the own group's (wall's) life. The group is also extra-safe from ko threats: the opponent needs to make 2 threats before the player has to react.



Yes.



Be happy! You have a thick group!



If you consider only the pro games and my comments on them, yes. The higher quality WRT to choices is in a) the statement of all the major (strategic) choices made in the joseki variation diagrams (where every other dictionary mentions only a few occasionally or none at all) and b) the functional classification in chapter 2.



Have you seen other joseki dictionaries (to keep things simple, let us for the moment stick to Vol. 3) offering

- a functional joseki classification
- a value type classification
- a generally applicable evaluation theory
- stone difference, territory and influence assessed for each joseki
- all major strategic choices stated for all variations?

I have seen no other dictionary with at least either of these features.



Oh, if I wanted to reply to this, we would get dozens of follow-up threads:)



I love this treatment! May discussion live forever!

(Now I have a bit of time for a few hints on this.)

FANCY?

Sometimes the names I use for terms are fancy. E.g., I have introduced the name '(putting) helping stones in front of a wall' for a move meaning with that purpose. It would certainly be more convenient if there were one word to describe the same and convey the same meaning. I could not find a shorter name for that purpose. However, the move type does exist and is relevant. A really fancy name would be: 'move of type 127'. I prefer telling names.

Usually, the names I use for terms are not fancy but straightforward. E.g., 'empty net' describes a net that is empty. Also 'N-connected' is straightforward but new. Why is it straightforward? It informs that something is connected and that there is the degree N. Of course, one could also write 'connected of degree N'. But why would one want to speak so inefficiently? We also write '20°C' and do not (regularly) write '20 degrees of Celsius'.

OTHER WAYS?

There are always other ways of describing something, and some of them are easy. E.g., instead of saying 'stone difference', one can also say 'difference of played black and white stones'; instead of saying 'territory count', one can also say 'difference of black and white territories'; instead of 'score', one can also say 'difference of black and white scores' etc.

There are two advantages of short(er) terms:
- they are shorter and therefore more convenient,
- it is easier to always use the same phrase for a term consistently and thereby be aware a) of it being a term and not just an arbitrary phrase and b) of exactly which term is being used instead of confusing apples and oranges.

In everyday language, we use nouns to enable ourselves to develop advanced thoughts about topics expressed by nouns. In go theory, we use terms to recall advanced knowledge already associated with the terms (or to develop additional knowledge).

SUPERFLUOUS NAMES?

There are countless of superfluous go terms: dog shape, horse shape, elephant shape, sagari etc. I prefer not to use them, but to use only such terms that are relevant. That you call part of the latter superfluous means that you have potential for acquiring new knowledge. If you refuse that knowledge, then, of course, you can also forgo new relevant terms.

I sometimes invent new names or use names suggested earlier by others to describe something that has - in English - Japanese names. E.g., you could say that 'net' was superfluous because there is 'geta'. IMO, terms should, whenever possible, have words already expressing a good part of the meaning. In English, 'net' is much more informative than 'geta'. There are other names which probably you dislike more. E.g., 'thick extension' instead of 'nobi'. This, however, is only half of the story. In English (without any extra fluent knowledge of a Japanese speaker, for whom possibly more information is contained), nobi does not specify whether it is thick or thin, alive or dead. The term I want to use (for a specific frequent kind of thick shape moves) must guarantee the 'thick' characteristic and exclude the 'thin' (or 'weak') alternative. Therefore, the extra word 'thick' in the term 'thick extension' is necessary. If we still used the Japanese word, to express the same, it would have to be called 'thick nobi'. While certainly this is a valid alternative name, the 'nobi' part conveys no meaning to a naive English speaker - contrarily, 'extension' conveys good information about the move of type 'thick extension'. (One could argue about number of syllabies, but English has its short and its longer words; we do not stop using the longer words just because are longer.)

NOTHING ORIGINAL?

You have noticed just how plainly easy my terms are:) They often are so easy that one can wonder whether one has just learnt something new. I want to make understanding easy, therefore I prefer, whenever possible, easy or even natural names for terms.

You read, e.g.(!), 'influence stone difference' and possibly understand immediately 'the difference of (numbers of Black's and White's) stones with (significant) influence'. This is, once you read it, so obvious that you wonder whether you have learnt anything new at all, and you complain: "It is nothing original!" I have never seen before my, what I think is an, invention anywhere any mentioning of the concept 'influence stone difference' under whichever name and never seen before any diagram conveying the idea implicitly. Have you? If you have not, then why do you claim that I would not have invented anything original (and given the concept a name)? AFAIK, it is new because it did not exist before I invented it. It is original because its invention required great creativity after many years of instead using weaker, much uglier concepts or methods (such as counting ill-defined empty intersections directly in front of walls).

Can you even appreciate how great the originality is to have found something simple and elegant?