My point is, with such an opening, your first two moves are influential stones whose purpose can probably best be described as "to exert influence." What form this influence will take can only become apparent as the game develops.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Therefore my reasoning applied before playing such moves include the strategic options
- to make territory
- to create a sphere of influence in which opposing stones can be attacked
- to create large scale cuts for attacks
- to create footholds for reductions or invasions
- to create options of exchanges
- to offer the opponent strategic choices

Hidden due to being off-topic
RobertJasiek:

Really?? people played this game 5000 years and didnt even bother solving this important "vicious circle of rules and life / death ?
does that help you get stronger? if so, i am sure people studied it already.

distinction of ko and non ko stone... wow. really?? is that a topic you should write a book about??? almost everyone understands the rule and play them everyday. i am sure they know what ko is. Again.. that will not make you strong at all.

professionals can count faster and more accurate than you. let me know if you disagree. then how is it possible that you write a book about capturing race and say it is the best way???

i find it hard to believe that you made the term not ambiguous while everything you say is ambiguous.

do i need to comment on this??? i think i have found a method to measure sanity and your level is 0.02 which is 89.7 point lower than mine. do you see my point?

are you talking about tenuki? i am sure you know that term..and didnt use it.. so i am thinking you are refering to something else and i dont know what that is.

group average <-- you have not define this term so i have no idea what you are talking about but there are people who study go and they are much smarter than you and stronger than you. by saying you have done what other could not, you are being arogant.

to sum what you are saying..
"I did many years of research on xxxxxx(terms that was never defined) which was unsolved for centuries and wrote a book.
everyone needs to read this because it will give you an understanding of go and make you stronger."
Wake up from LIMBO world and smell the coffee.
you are not qualifed to write a go book that will make others stronger.

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

No.

Tell us how to use influence.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

This is just my opinion, and not an enlightened one.
For me, influence is about whole-board positioning. It is about understanding when you play one move in the top right corner that it affects the bottom left life and death problem.
It is about understanding when your opponent plays an approach on your 3-4 stone on the bottom left, you play a forcing move on the top right to create a ladder breaker before you play the joseki you want in the bottom left.

I am terrible at this, but that is how I think about it. Every stone affects/influences all the other positions on the board. The better one understands these effects, and consequently the importance of influence. I think the idea of "using" influence is not well stated. It is really about understanding the influence of particular local stones on the whole board.

I could be entirely wrong, and perhaps I am even talking about something else completely. I still think this is an important part of go, even if it is not called influence.

By whom? This seems pretty well stated:



Perhaps Magicwand, whose abilities to use influence are probably on a similar level as Robert's might offer his own explanation of what influence is and how to use it. Contrary to what he says, many of us are in fact quite interested in what a mere 5d (or a 1d for that matter) has to say on the subject.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Whether they played this game or predecessors is an open question. Say "at least about 500 - 2000 years" and it is still impressive.



They tried and failed. Stone scoring at least circumvented the problem. The more serious attempts were made in 1949 and 1989 (years of the Japanese rules versions). Failures.



Yes. The necessary work increased my tsumego. For regular players, reading the solution offers only a fraction of a stone though. The greatest benefit is for all those non-players in countries with a sparse go population. If they have it now easier from 100k to 20k, then that is a great success.



Some did. They told me. Practically speaking, the BGA has adopted a reasonable ruleset and Italians are interested in a translation of the Japanese 2003 Rules.



Really. For cycles of arbitrary length with or without passes given arbitrary positions, wow indeed.



No. Rather it is a topic I should write several books about.



Unlike you, they at least know that there is more than then 2 play cycle ko.



Correct. Understanding the general ko theory does not make anyone strong. Strong in an absolute sense. It can make players relatively stronger though. IMO, the greatest advantage is an understanding of the nature of when ko is worth fighting in a functional sense.



Faster: yes. More accurate in case of liberties - I do not know. For the capturing races I (and now similarly Thomas Wolf) have already solved, 100% accuracy is possible for me or every reader of the book given sufficient thinking time (in lightning games, mistakes are possible). So for those semeais the professionals cannot be "more accurate". At best they can be as accurate as I am. (Psychologically unforced errors are another point of discussion, of course.)



Let me repeat: So far it (or Thomas Wolf's more recent alternative approach) is the best way for those classes of semeais explained in the book. How it is possible? Because the theory does not (strictly: only marginally) depend on fast reading or accurate game tree walking. The theory is about recognising conditions (like "has an eye"), counting liberties and conditions (like "Black has more fighting liberties than White"). Now a serious 15 kyu can acquire the same basic semeai skill as a 9p professional.



I do not cite every sentence of my book because it is written for commercial reasons - not as a source of punishment in the form of writing it twice (once in the book, a second time here).



I do not see your point because sanity is irrelevant for Go strategy while avoiding overconcentration is relevant.



Yes.



Can you even imagine the intention of avoiding superfluous Asian terms in English texts? I also would not like to read a Korean phrase in an English text; I would not understand it. Texts should be made easy for the readers. Ok, tenuki is a borderline case because it is already pretty well integrated in English go terminology. There are some readers with Chinese background though and not all of them know all the Japanese terms.



It is defined in my book.



Either that or you because you think you would not learn it from the book without trying.



Actually some HAVE BECOME stronger from reading my books.

The things you are talking about are 1) haengma, 2) direction of play in the sense of which region to play next in, 3) (ladder) conditions / relations. Influence as a go term has a different meaning. Summarising the best ideas prior to my definition, it was described about as "impact of strong(er) stones on weak(er) stones and empty intersections, such as the impact of a wall of thickness on the formation of moyo" and had an implicit context of possible degrees that stronger, nearer groups create greater influence. It was, however, unclear what the nature of such impact was and how to assess and compare degrees.

Not even that is right. Science had excellent works neglected for long times and centuries later came remarks like "the researcher was centuries ahead of his time".



Seeing your other post, I guess you first need to understand what the English go term influence is about. At your rank, one starts learning such things. So I cannot know if are already aware of the concept at all.



What you describe may be a useful process in, say, science but is not easily and regularly possible in the too small Western go world, which is so small that most(?) go books never get any serious review...



Of course, if you don't read them:)



http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?topic=4393.60

YinYangDD, 24.07.2011:
"Das Buch reiht sich nahtlos an den ersten Teil an, der Robert's Go-Systematik präsentiert. Darüber kann man jetzt herrlich streiten, wie universell es ist, ob es für alle Spieler passend ist, ob es wissenschaftlich ist oder nicht - ich finde, das sollte jeder für sich selbst entscheiden. Mir liegt diese Art Systematik, nun muss ich sie nur noch in Spielstärke umsetzen Cheesy

Im Buch werden verschiedenste strategische Elemente durchgegangen, wonach man die aktuelle Brettsituation bewerten kann. Dazu zählen dann Dinge wie "Wie bewertet man Dicke?" "Wie bewertet man den Punktestand?", die Bedeutung von Schnitten usw.
Der Zusammenhang zu Josekis ist nicht unbedingt immer gegeben, dennoch finde ich die Darstellung der Prinzipien sehr klar und einhellig. Ein kleiner Schwachpunkt ist aus meiner Sicht, dass die Prinzipien beschrieben sind, aber offen bleibt, wie man die Bewertung nutzt, um die Brettsituation weiter entwickelt. Das letzte Kapitel "Strategische Planung" weißt da einen guten Weg, ist allerdings sehr kurz gehalten. Ich hoffe, dass der dritte Band hier weiter ansetzt und weitere Hinweise gibt!

Aus meiner Sicht ist es das bisher umfassendste Buch, worauf Strategie während des Spiels fußt. Ich denke, mir hilft es, in Zukunft meine Spiele besser zu planen und dann Entscheidungshilfen zu haben, welche Gruppe man wie entwickelt."

http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?topic=4393.80
Nagu, 29.07.2011:
"
Ich habe das Buch zwar schon relativ früh von Robert bezogen, bin aber erst vor kurzem dazu gekommen, mich eingehender mit dem Buch zu befassen. Und nach einem halben Jahr der Stagnation bei 6 kyu gewinne ich nun auch als 5Kyu so viel Spiele, dass ich mich steil den 4Kyu (KGS) nähere. Und das obwohl ich zuvor stetig Probleme gelöst habe.
Eigentlich ist noch ein ausführliches Review angedacht, aber so viel kann ich schon sagen:
Roberts Sinn für Genauigkeit hat zwei Seiten. Zum einen dazu, dass er ein Konzept nicht unter den Tisch kehrt, nur weil es aus der Sicht von starken Spielern trivial ist. Seine Definition von Stabilität zum Beispiel war nicht vollkommen überraschend für mich, aber ich habe eine größere Aufmerksamkeit für Entwicklungsrichtungen bekommen. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass mir seine präzisen Definitionen bei meinem Spiel das Gefühl geben, ein größere Sicherheit darüber zu haben, was ich gerade tue.
Es stimmt allerdings, dass das Buch mehr von einem Nachschlagewerk hat, als von einem Lehrbuch hat. Und zwar in dem Sinne, dass es nicht auf eine bestimmte Spielstärke zugeschnitten ist. Bei manchen Themen wie zum Beispiel Sente & Gote habe ich gemerkt, dass ich die entsprechenden Aspekte bisher zu wenig gewürdigt habe und ich gerne weitere Beispiele und Ausführungen gesehen hätte. Ich fände es psychologisch vorteilhafter, wenn sich der behandeltete Stoff insgesamt auf einem ähnlichen Niveau bewegt hätte. In diesem Buch variert es sehr: Konzepte wie Schneiden und Verbinden sind beinahe zu leicht verdaulich. Sehr interessant wiederum ist der Themenkomplex Stability/Investment/Urgency/Tenuki/Timing. Sehr präzise wird auch das Thema Forcing Moves behandelt. Auch der Spezialfall Induktion. ( Habe ich bisher sonst nur in Attack & Defense ) gesehen. Diese Themen hat Robert sehr gut dargestellt, seine Beispiele sind immer sehr gut gewählt.
Bei einem Thema wie Stärke ist schon etwas problematisch, da die vorgestellten Modelle hauptsächlich dabei helfen, verschiedene Qualitätsgrade von Stärke zu erkennen.
Bezüglich Stärke liegen meine größten Fehler aber oft in Wahl eines falschen Josekis, die Wände passen also nicht zum restlichen Brett. Das Buch behandelt zwar das gute Sprichwort "Play away from thickness", aber es gibt noch viele andere gute Prinzipien für den Umgang mit Stärke, die ich einem fundierten theoretischen Modell vorgezogen hätte. Zum Beispiel wird nur indirekt darauf eingegangen, wie Stärke entwertet wird. Nach einer 3-3-Invasion zur falschen Seite zu blocken, ist bei vielen Kyu-Spieler noch sehr beliebt. Allerdings ist es auch mMn nicht einfach zu beantworten, wo man bei einem Lehrbuch für Josekis die Grenze ziehen sollte, wenn man auf Stärke und Einfluss eingehen möchte. Na ja..
Von diesem Punkt mal abgesehen, finde ich die konzeptionelle Darstellung der strategischen Konzepte ( also abgesehen von Stärke und Einfluss) ausführlicher als in anderen Büchern. Wenn ich das Gefühl hätte irgendwo nachschlagen zu müssen, würde ich ohne Überlegen dieses Buch zur Hand nehmen.
( Bezüglich Stärke gibt es schönes Buch aus der Mastering the Basics-Serie. Smiley )
Zum Analyseteil kann ich nicht so viel sagen, da ich in meinen Partien nicht so genau zähle, meistens nur grobe optische Checks. Smiley
Einiges meine ich aber schon aus anderen Bücher zu kennen, zumindest in ähnlicher Form. Schön fand ich auf jeden Fall auch, dass einen Abschnitt zu Tewari gab, obwohl ich zugeben muss, dass ich noch nicht sicher bin, ob es da nicht auch ein paar Beispiele getan hätten, um diese Methode zu erklären.

Wieder sehr interessant fand ich die Abschnitte, in denen die globale Brettsituation betrachtet wurde und der strategische Bewertungs- und Entscheidungsprozess dokumentiert wurde. Zum einen gab es hier hilfreiche Prinzipien, aber es wurden auch die vorgestellten strategischen Konzepte in den globalen Kontext eingefügt.
Na ja, man kann noch viele Punkte ansprechen, aber... die ändern auch nichts an meinem Eindruck.

Der wäre: Die Darstellung des Stoffs ist häufig etwas heavy. ( Mein letztes Textbuch war "This is haengma". Auch ein sehr lehrreiches Buch, aber im Vergleich zu diesem sehr viel leichter zu verdauen.) Aber wer sich durch die Seiten arbeitet und sich ernsthaft damit auseinandersetzt, kann mit diesem Buch sehr viel lernen. Allerdings bin ich auch der Meinung, dass das Buch sehr davon profitiert hätte, wenn es stärker auf ein bestimmtes Zielpublikum ( vorzugsweise Kyu-Spieler Tongue )ausgerichtet wäre und das Wissen etwas dosierter präsentiert hätte.
Aber: Momentan scheint es mir den richtigen Anstoß zu geben. Zumindest für meine Person sehe ich die These widerlegt, dass man nur Spielen und Leben&Tod-Probleme lösen muss, um sich verbessern."

Translation of the sentence "nach einem halben Jahr der Stagnation bei 6 kyu gewinne ich nun auch als 5Kyu so viel Spiele, dass ich mich steil den 4Kyu (KGS) nähere.": "After half a year of stagnation at 6 kyu, now as a 5 kyu I win so many games that I approach 4 kyu (KGS) quickly."

BTW, the method "unsettled group average" determines almost precise approximations of these values of an unsettled group (a group that is neither unconditionally alive, a seki nor unconditionally dead): the count (territorial value) and the miai value (per move value of an attacking or defending move). A requirement for the method is the possibility of a locally restricted judgement.

Thanks for explaining your position more, Robert.

It seems to me that your approach is to delve into go in a very methodical way, trying to systematically explain the essence of go.

A contrasting approach is a more intuitive one, which I believe Magicwand adopts. The intuitive approach probably does not try to systematically explain go in a structured way. However, it may have the benefit of "knowing" that a particular way of playing is correct based on feeling and experience.

These two approaches, while not necessarily exclusive, are quite different, and it is hard to "prove" that one is better than the other.

However, in my opinion, the best indicator of which method is better can only be seen by who wins more games.

In other words, if having a more intuitive approach leads to more wins than a systematic one, I feel that that approach is probably better for getting stronger.

Looking at the data - you have claimed to have solved certain areas of study that pros don't bother to try to get better at - I would venture that it's probably more useful to focus on the same things that pros do.

If pros win more because of experience and intuition, then by golly, I think that experience and intuition is the way to go. Studying other stuff is interesting, but it's probably not the best way to get better if pros don't adhere to those methods.

_________________
be immersed

Moving on to the 18th century, in this castle game White demonstrated a better understanding of outside influence that Black. White used his walls to attack and make territory elsewhere. Black's early attack produced territory, but then fizzled. Note that White's first wall is not particularly strong.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

In the long run, only the methodical approach (or maybe alternatively sheer computer calculation power applied to some yet to be discovered methods) can win, i.e. solve the game some centuries later.



There are more indicators. An important other indicator is: Formally proving the truth of a theorem.



Why? The alternative explanation is: It has been more popular in the past and this still shows in the present.



Be patient! Method requires understanding the fundamentals first before the laurels can be collected. BTW, in the meantime also professionals can learn from methodical insight for both playing and teaching.



Wait another 30 to 50 years and you will see that your guess is wrong:)

@Kirby

While RJ is a go player interested in arcane theoretical matters, he is also a teacher. He doesn't write books to get stronger, he writes them so that people wishing to get stronger can do so by reading his books. While there may be many methods of improving, in order to teach you do need to be able to verbalize your thoughts and it's probably not bad if you can back up your opinions with something more than your excellent intuition. Winning games is utterly irrelevant to the validity of his ideas. Also, there are many pros who not only read but also write books about go.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

@Bill

Perhaps you could say a bit more about how white uses influence in that game. You mention around move 104 how white cashes in on his influence, but I'm not sure which influence you're talking about. Which stones or groups do you see as exerting powerful influence, and can you say more about how white profits from it?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

White's initial wall was not very strong, but White extended and strengthened it with his counterattack on the top side. Later he initiated an attack on the bottom side. Then when Black starts his counterattack and White hanes in the bottom left, Black does not protect the corner. If he did, his counterattack would fail. White would connect his stones while attacking Black's floating stones. If Black saved those stones, White would wall off the left side, probably on the second line, and make territory there. So Black pushes through, ceding the corner to White.

As White continues the attack with W100 - W110, he makes territory. Not so much, perhaps, but the whole process of the attack has been one of cashing in on White's influence in the center and left side.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I am interested in both ordinary and arcane theoretical matters.



While writing the books, I also learn a lot because writing forces me to think yet more about everything than my laziness wishes:) Besides teaching, there are more reasons for writing the books, including a) getting a good reference for myself and b) advancing go theory.

So the stones we're talking about that are exerting influence in this case are G5 and E7?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I'm sure that learning is a nice side effect of writing books and papers, but Kirby's post compares your analytical approach to MW's intuitive one and suggests that your's might not be the best way to improve, and I simply wanted to point out that while you may also be interested in improving, your approach has other functions: it helps your teaching and suits your interest in researching arcane (and ordinary) topics.

While few go players approach go in such a methodical way as you do, I imagine that it's the only way that you can, and whether it's the best way is probably irrelevant.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.