The new book Life and Death Problems 1 - Basics is available. It has 196 pages and is suitable for playing strengths from ca. 20 kyu to 5 kyu. Although it is mainly a problem book, it explains also the necessary techniques and principles. The price is EUR 23.00 (book) or EUR 11.50 (PDF).

Information:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/LifeAndDeathProblems.html

Cover:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/LifeAndDeat ... _Cover.png

Table of contents:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/LifeAndDeat ... _1_TOC.pdf

Sample pages:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/LifeAndDeat ... Sample.pdf

Review:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/LifeAndDeat ... eview.html

Dear Robert,

In my opinion, you should consider to provide a much more CONTINUOUS / COHERENT presentation / excerpt of AT LEAST ONE topic of your book as a "sample". I.e. "the topic's theory" / "problems" / "answers".

Your "sample pages" -- as these are in the moment -- do not give any clue, how useful / valuable the entire contents of your book might be for an interested reader / buyer.

To give you a more concrete idea of what I have in mind:

The "free chapter" of the SmartGo Book on "Igo Hatsuyoron 120" contains the table of contents, the introduction, and the ENTIRE "Summary of Our Solution". We had no fear to let any of our "secrets" become unrevealed with this "public" part of our book.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

As I understand you, you would like to see, for example, the successive pages of the subchapters Snapback, Threatening a Snapback and Preventing a Snapback? If so, I will consider it. The current sample's idea is to provide a reasonably representative selection of random pages.

I think this is a good idea. If the reader/prospective buyer can use your sample pages to learn from, she will get a much better feel for how you use the problems to teach the relevant concepts, and whether she finds this approach suitable to her needs.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

In viewtopic.php?p=152398#p152398 hyperpape asks why the term 'lake', which is defined as

"A LAKE is a connected part of the potential eyespace of the defender's group that is, or can easily become, visually surrounded by his stones, and excludes simple boundary defects."

on p. 53 of the book, seemed rather imprecise for my sometimes used more precise definition standards. Simply speaking, the book is written for beginners (or players up to ca. 5 kyu), not for theorists. Therefore, "can easily become" and "visually surrounded" are not defined in the book. (There is, however, a chapter explaining simple boundary defects, which the defender needs to fill and so cannot become part of an eye.)

Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=152448#p152448



This asks about the book's principle

"If the eyespace consists of one lake and there is only one obvious first move, start with its verification.".

For part of the examples, there are short comments giving hints why a move is obvious. There is no general procedure for distinguishing obvious from non-obvious moves.

Comment outside the book: IOW, 'obvious' is not a go term, but the player applying the principle decides which moves he considers obvious. If he is unsure, he does not apply the principle.

Dear Robert,

I asked for "POINT", not for "MOVE".


What I have in mind:

In my understanding, "POINT" is related to "shape", but "MOVE" is related to "technique".

After having read the table of contents of your book, I have the feeling that your book's structure follows the "mainstream" of the Tsume-Go literature so far (excluding problem collection books that consist of problems & solutions only).
This is

-- explanation of one technique
-- problems that apply this one technique

Why didn't you try something "new" ?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

I am not sure exactly why you insist of 'point'. I use point as a scoring unit and exceptionally in fixed phrases such as 'vital point'. I do not use it for intersections, so that they are not confused with scoring points.

Most problem books shown only problems + answers. Fewer problem books sort or structure by topic and introduce a topic by a diagram and a short text. I go a bit further by also defining a technique or move type, where a definition can add further information, and including more in the book, such as a theory chapter and a few principles.

For a problem book with sorting or (as this book) overall structure of the topics, the internal structure of a chapter "introduction with a bit theory and sample example, then problems, then answers" is useful. Therefore, I use it for this book. There is no need to invent a new internal structure of the chapters. I do not see books as a fight for the most unorthodox internal structure of presentation.

I do, however, compete for the quality of the TOC's structure. Except for topics postponed for later volumes (such as 'ko'), the important basics are included, while advanced details are not included. You can't guess how much time I needed to work out the structure: two months! I first had to identify the techniques and principles and recognise their relations. Filling a book with random topics is easy, because the author can save the two months of preliminary study. Good books must save their readers such extra work and present them the resulting structure. With such a good structure, exploring the topic becomes much easier and more fruitful. Also I have benefitted from this: now, my view on LD basics is much clearer. Instead of just knowing "liberty shortages" are frequently important, now it is clear at a glance which major techniques for liberty shortages exist.

What matters is the contents. The contents contains a lot of new things, and the selection of topics is a new combination, which I have not seen similarly in any other book.

In "common understanding", "POINT" is used to identify the spot on the board, where a stone will be / has been placed. "MOVE" is related to the act of putting a stone on a board's "POINT".

I now understand that you prefer to name this board's spot "intersection". However, if you do so, you should not use "vital POINT", but "vital insersection", too, to pre-empt any mismatch.


This structure does not tell us anything about the contents.

My statement was explilcitely related to "technique" being the issue covered by you, and using the structure described by you.


When you thought for so long, let me repeat my question: Why did you not try something "new" ?
As usual with your publications, you have run into the danger to be understood as claiming that you have found the "ideal" / "perfect" method for structuring a field of interest.


As I have already written, "POINT" (your "intersection") is related to "shape", in my understanding.
Using your example, "shape" is related to recognising that "there is / might be a shortage of liberties". The unanswered question is "How to enable successful recognising ?"
The next question (with having "POINT" / your "intersection" in mind) will be where the spots on the board are that are strongly connected to this "shortage of liberties".

You might understand the effect as if there were some spots on the board highlighted, where you could think of to apply several techniques on.
I strongly suppose that this is the way very strong players "see" the Go board.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Cassandra, please clarify what your question "Why did you not try something 'new'?" is aiming at? The internal structure of every chapter?

There is not only one ideal structure of LD problem books for beginners. E.g., there can be problem-only books, and their advantage can be a greater number of problems, while likely disadvantages might be no theory, fewer answer diagrams, smaller problem diagrams. LD can be discussed also in pure theory books, and then there are no problems. WRT my book, the more interesting question would be if there is exactly one ideal structure for LD problem books about the LD basics and written for beginners. There can be more than one structure, because different books can go into details to different extents. E.g., a very well researched book could go into finer details to possibly offer a complete classification of all theoretically existing basic techniques. IMO, such degree of detail would contradict the purpose of a beginners' book (and would still need a lot of research). My book's structure is, IMO, about as detailed as a book for beginners can become without demanding too much from the readers. A different book might have a simpler TOC (fundamentals, eyespaces, liberty shortages) without subchapters but, say, 60 problems per chapter; because the book's structure would have been studied much less, quite a few of the finer topics would be missing in the examples. Also this different book serves a purpose of being more repetitive. Maybe some readers of LD problem books prefer 9 problems about creating snapbacks and do not care whether 'threatening to create snapbacks' or 'preventing snapbacks' exist. Hence, whether a structure is ideal depends on aims that shall be fulfilled.

For my book, one of the aims is to teach all types of moves that are basic, pretty relevant (frequent) in practice and do not belong to a topic of a later volume. Does the book fulfil this aim, or do you think that such topics are missing or misplaced in this book; IOW, is the book's structure chosen well for the aim? I do not perceive any "danger" here, but I am confident that the answer is positive. I am confident, because I have checked the moves of hundreds of basic or almost-basic examples. In general, the contents of a book should be justified by study.

Unlike you, I am not such a shape fan, but a fan of purposes (of moves or stones). Purposes are perceived also by being or becoming familiar with the book's techniques. The "obvious move" principle is an exception, because "perceiving the obvious" is not a go technique, but a general human ability. Knowing well the book's techniques can contribute to improving also this ability, but "obvious" has a broader scope than only LD techniques. E.g., for the obvious move examples given elsewhere, it helps to be aware of the techniques or concepts 'vital point', 'connection', 'reduction', 'nakade', 'internal liberty shortage'. A reason why I put the chapter about basic reading principles near the end of the book is: being already familiar with the techniques helps with perceiving obvious moves.

Thank you, you have given the answer yourself.

I am unsure whether I can be named as "shape fan".
However, I think that "shape" is a largely underrepresented / uncared-for aspect within the Tsume-Go literature.

During my nine-years' involvement with the "problem's corner" of the German Go-Journal ("Deutsche Go-Zeitung") there were -- from time to time -- several "complaints" that the problems given were "too difficult".

It is my firm conviction (for one reason or another I knew the problems' solutions) that these "complaints" were NOT based on
"I do not know the technique(s) required.",
but on
"I have absolutely no idea where the VITAL POINT is."

The same is true for
"I do not see the problem's VITAL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS."

"VITAL POINT" and "VITAL STRUCTURAL ELEMENT" have to do with "SHAPE", not with "move", neither with "technique".

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Consideration of shapes has its justification for some applications. E.g., it is useful to know the thick shapes. In LD, one must know the reading and solutions of the standard LD shapes, simply because they frequently occur. (This will be done in later volumes.) However, for the sake of an LD move's functions, the shape is almost immaterial. A bad live shape is better than a beautiful dead shape. A bad shape with a good ko threat balance is better than a nice shape with a bad ko threat balance. A throw-in is not powerful because of its shape, but because of its function of reducing the opponent's eyespace.

EDIT:

Everything in LD (except problems evaluated by only their number) is largely under-represented. In particular, I agree that this is so for shapes:) OTOH, read the Nihon Kiin's Tesuji Dictionary, and you might be at least partially cured.

On the German discussion board you claim that this book fills a market gap. Why do you think that? Isn't "Graded Go Problems for Beginners" exactly for the intended target audience?

Graded Go Problems for Beginners is good (and can be recommended) for tsumego problems. IIRC, it also contains a couple of LD problems. For learning LD reading and LD problem solving, Graded Go Problems for Beginners is by far not good enough. LD problem solving is much harder than the average tsumego problem solving, which can often be considered solved if one finds one tesuji move or has read 1, or sometimes 2, move-sequences.

LD problems have, on average, a much greater branching factor in the variations, so that more variations must be considered and branching can occur in more, and a greater variety of, follow-up positions. Techniques occuring for LD problems have other frequencies than techniques in tsumego problems.

Graded Go Problems for Beginners (or any tsumego problem books) by far do not sufficiently prepare players to always read correctly and never miss another, status-changing move.

I see the effect of previously insufficient English LD literature for beginners, when watching my pupils in the 20 kyu to 5 kyu range. For almost all of them, their LD reading skill is significantly to very much weaker than most of their other skills. They asked me which problem books to read, but the best I could suggest was to look for easy (not too easy, not too difficult) Asian books.

Life and Death by Davies is useful, but restricted WRT the techniques it teaches; maybe it is not so useful for 20 to 13k, but I might be wrong about the range. All About Life and Death was, when still in print, good for 5 - 1k, but it is also restricted WRT the techniques it teaches. Both books are restricted in the variety of studied shapes: they discuss too many standard shapes and too few realistic real-game shapes.

For learning LD reading, only books specialising in LD are good enough. For learning a good variety of techniques, only books offering such are good enough. For learning LD as a beginner, the book must be suitable for a reasonably broad range of beginners. For learning to read correctly and not miss relevant, alternative moves, the problem answers and variations must be reasonably exhaustive. My book has these features.

That's one interpretation of your observations. Let me offer another one:

Anyone willing to pay you to be his/her teacher has to buy into that "theory is what makes you stronger" bs and thus will universally suck at tsumego.

From what I own, aimed at that bracket:

1001 Life & Death Problems: Varies from one move problems to five move problems. 15k+
Get Strong at Life and Death: 5k+
Essential Life and Death: 20k-5k, depending on volume. L&D drills.
Speed Baduk: 20k-5kish, Not just Life and Death but most problems in each of the books I have are Life and Death focused.

There are more (like Level Up and Jump Up) which I don't own.


In the English language market there are many books focused on problems in this area. If I had to point to a large gap it'd be in non-problem books for the 10k-5k level similar to Attack and Defense.

My opinion is that THE standard for learning L&D problems systematically up to shodan is "All About Life and Death" volumes 1 & 2 which unfortunately are out of print and impossible to legally reprint in English. But I have yet to buy and read RJ's new book.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

I don't see where language comes into play in a subject like L&D, or tesuji. For example, in Segoe-Seigen tesuji dictionary, the most bare hint of what to do is given as "chapter introduction," i.e. a contact play is what it's called for. Then you are thrown into the water. Go out and look for it. Same could go for almost any other concept. Snapback? Show a very basic shape and pile 50 problems, hopefully increasing in difficulty. At the end the player will have a good grasp of snapback and will know several "snapbackable" shapes by heart.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

leichtloeslich, I disagree with your theory about pupils being necessarily weak at LD, because it does not apply to pupils 4 kyu or stronger. For them, there is a healthy variation of a few with LD reading problems and others doing LD reasonably well for their ranks. Western 5k or weaker, however, have a general tendency to be weaker at LD than at most other fields. I do not see this only for my pupils, but for others I have only little observation, so I can be much less sure whether indeed also they are consistently weak at LD.

Boidhre, IIRC, the books you mention are like typical Asian problem books: many problems, but not always enough answer diagrams (when more relevant variations exist than are shown), explanations and accompanying theory. This makes it difficult for a beginner with weak LD skills to overcome incomplete reading or understand why his read variation(s) do not work.

tchan001, All About Life and Death do not serve beginners as well as 5k - 1k players, because beginner LD mistakes affect non-standard real-game shapes much more frequently than standard shapes. It is maybe 80% : 20%. SDKs learn more and more standard shapes, therefore create more and more, and so are confronted with an increasing frequency of mistakes in them, especially when the opponent tries trick plays or one extra stone makes the difference.

RBerenguel, language and its terms offer an assisting tool for recalling techniques and thinking in terms of techniques ("Can I create a liberty shortage?"). Even more importantly, LD allows many techniques; without even knowing names for them, it is hard to be aware and remember all. E.g., without having the concept 'double threat' in mind, less likely a player considers double purpose moves at all. The exact name for such a purpose is maybe immaterial, but being entirely speechless makes it hard to find moves with multiple purposes. This is so also at higher learning levels. E.g., without having the name (ten)thousand-year ko, one might overlook that its behaviour differs from an ordinary ko fight.

I think we have a profoundly philosophical difference here Robert, even though I am all in for definitions (as any good mathematician) I concede that there are parts of our brain that don't work in words. So, my impression is that my mind doesn't need a name for the concept of double threat as long as the deeper understanding is there "look ma, I threat two things at once if I do this!" Having names is good to discuss games, though, so probably teaching a beginner just by examples of snapback without putting a name to it would make funny watching him later explaining something "You had this gap and then this happened and oh look they are no longer there if you take."

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net