Hi Robert, Bantari,

It's all good; no problem.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Not really impressed with impressions on the physical nature of the book. Still waiting for impressions on what the content of the book is about, who the book is suitable for, how the book might help people improve their game, etc.

I think book reviews are normally mainly written for the audience of potential book purchasers rather than for the publisher of the book to provide minor corrections in subsequent editions.

I do not base book buying decisions on whether there are poorly placed italics or quotation marks. If the content is worthwhile, those are very forgivable. On the other hand, I have bought some old Chinese books before where some of the diagram pictures depicting moves in go games were utterly unreadable because of poor printing. That would be something worth mentioning as a caution to potential buyers.

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

I was also offered a free copy in exchange for an evaluation. I instead decided to buy the book by myself with the intention of writing an evaluation. I read the book and made extensive notes as Ed did. But I failed to post the evaluation. I didn't want to be a nitpicker but on the other hand Robert's English often irritated me. ( I admit, mine is not too good either, but I don't write go books ). I am only 6 or 7 kyu and I don't feel strong enough to comment much about the content. It definitely helps me to get another understanding of the game and of how to fight and the goals behind fighting. At the same time I feel I learnt a lot of the same practical things but maybe in another way, with another approach from Attack and Defence. So in line with Bonobo I think the book is worth reading but you must be willing to digest sandpaper ( Though probably Bonobo is correct that the English has improved). The physical quality of the book is good enough and I don't mind too much about the typography as the diagrams are very good. Easy to read with good explanations and error free ( or at leat almost ).

@Robert: My barber advises me to sit dead still when he shaves me.( poorly translated from Dutch )

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.

I guess I should clarify that, no matter how critical I wrote about their language and typography, RJ’s books (not only this one) are worth reading, they have highly educative content, and I have the impression I learn a lot from them.

Regards, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

RJ's books always seem interesting. I just haven't worked up the courage to buy one because I know that it will require active participation.

Ed, is it possible to edit your later posts into the OP? That might make it easier to read later.

Hi cylops, I also find this an important area. Originally, I was going to start with this,
since this was in fact the first thing I noticed after the excellent paper quality.
But I have not yet found a nice way to present it. So I wrote my other impressions first.May I ask what's the original Dutch version (I know zero Dutch; I'm just curious), and what does it mean (also curious ).

Hi lemmata, Thanks for your suggestion -- that's not my original intention, but perhaps it's possible. Later. Maybe much later.
A detailed read and analysis of the book may take me a long time -- I mean months or years.
(See also this thread .)
So for the time being, I'm keeping this bloggish-journalish "impressionist" style.

Als je geschoren wordt, moet je stilzitten.
When you get shaved you'd better sit still. ( Obviously a good advice unless you want your throat to be cut ).
Meaning: When it is your turn ( to be criticized / to be evaluated / to be analysed) you'd better wait quitly until it is over.

It is meant as an advice not as a demand. If the barber asks a question the victim answers very politely and briefly ( mind you ).
A too long answer might be cut off;)

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.

Hi cyclops, Thanks. Very interesting. For some reason I had not imagined
the shaving of facial hair. I only visualized shaving of the scalp --
so a bad result would be a funny haircut, not blood on the throat.

Fighting Fundamentals is the first and only book I have that is written by Robert.

Based on this book, my general impression is that Robert is quite thorough in his Go research,
and that he works very hard and has put a tremendous amount of effort into it.
These are good qualities.

In general, when he introduces a new term, concept, or idea, he either defines it
or gives an explanation of it. Then, he shows some examples. The examples can come from
a local or whole board position. In some cases, he gives examples from pro games.

In some cases, his definitions feel strange or unnatural to me.
I give some examples in the next few posts.

Suggestion for improvement:

He introduces and defines the terms string connection, direction connection, and indirect connection,
and gives the following three examples (page 8):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Example 3: string connection
$$ -------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . O . .
$$ | . . 1 X X X O . .
$$ | . . X O O O O . .
$$ | . . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . O O . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Example 4: direct connection
$$ -----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . X . . X . .
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Example 5: indirect connection
$$ -----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . X . . . X .
$$ | . . O , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I find these terms a little strange and unnatural.
I am used to the terms "solid connection" or "direct connection" for the type shown in Example 3.
To me, Example 4 is not a direct connection; it is an indirect connection -- both examples 4 and 5 are indirect connections.

When I see the term "solid connection" or "direct connection," it means to me
that the defender can tenuki infinitely and the opponent still cannot cut apart the stones --
it is impossible to split the stones.
In contrast, for Examples 4 and 5, W can make two successive moves (i.e. B tenuki once) and split the two B stones.

For me, a fundamental property of a "solid" or "direct" connection is that it is impossible to split the stones.
Therefore, all other connections are indirect.

Note that this is merely my preference and suggestion.

Suggestion for improvement: he defines "aji" with a negative sense ("latent, bad possibilities", page 26).

I am used to "aji" being neutral -- thus, I'm used to reading about "good aji" and "bad aji".

I don't know how the original 味 (aji) is used in Go literature in Japanese.
Maybe others more fluent in Japanese can shed some light.
I seem to recall the phrase 味が悪い (the aji is bad).
I also seem to recall they say "good aji" and "bad aji" in Chinese Go literature.

If I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me.

Phrases of the kind solid, direct, indirect connection were used ambiguously and with varying meanings in the literature, but never in the sense of classifying the three types of connections I use. In particular, my "indirect connection" was missing entirely. Of course, other names would have worked, too. E.g., connection types I, II, III or "one-string-connection", "cannot be cut multiple strings connection", "connection that can be cut without gained advantage". Regardless of the chosen names for the three terms, exactly this classification is essential because it is frequently applied in my go theory and books, especially in principles. See also http://senseis.xmp.net/?RobertJasiek%2FSolidConnection

In the English literature, aji has sometimes been used in a neutral meaning, sometimes in a negative sense. I call the neutral / unspecific meaning "possibilities" and the negative meaning "aji" and use these phrases consistently with these meanings. I consider it easier to write "aji" than "negative / bad aji" all the time.

Ed, you are right. Aji can be good or bad, and even "latent" can be questioned - it is the noticeable after-taste (i.e. it means "atoaji") that is being emphasised rather than what is hidden. Strictly it is misused in several ways in English. One is to use it where Japanese would say "te ga aru" - there is a move, i.e. something concrete is already achievable - at one end of the scale, or where, at the other end of the scale, they would use words like "aya" or "fukumi" to say there is a wisp of an idea there, or a hint of something. And "nerai" takes us also into more strategic territory. They also have an array of compounds such as ajitsuki and ajibaru, so an English equivalent is always going to be a fuzzy match at best.

But we are capable, I think, of sensing what a Japanese senses even in a fuzzy situation, as is illustrated by a famous senryu (jokey mini-poem)- famous enough to appear in more than one version.

この味がと、ﾍﾀがｼﾞｮｳｽﾞの口を真似

"With this aji blah, blah, blah." Thus the weakie imitates stronger guys.

I'm sure we all recognise that scenario!

On the "connection" angle, I also agree with your remarks. Japanese offers a similar distinction by using e.g. "tsugu" and "renraku". It's an interesting debate: is it good to define terms your own way to ensure accurate conveyance of your ideas, while risking confusion the ideas of others in 99% of the existing literature (or native intuitions). I can sympathise with both sides, but if you are innovating I really do think you need to stress any aberrant usages to your readers.

Last time I checked Go was a zero-sum, competition between two players. Could you, Ed or JF, post a couple of examples of 'good' aji for White that is not equally 'bad' aji for Black?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

There is no "99%" agreement on the precise meanings of informally used "terms". Rather, precise usage by some authors or precise translations by translators can lead to discussions and so a broader awareness of prior ambiguity and better understanding of possible modern options of precise meanings.

Aji / possibilities is not always used in a perfect information meaning, but we often need to assess possibilites as options when we still do not know which option will be good or bad for a particular player. Then calling a particular option "bad" for a player might be premature judgement.

John and Robert, thanks for the replies.

Hi Robert, how do you deal with the meaning and usage of "good aji" ?

Hi Dave, if I imagine two opponents in a physical fight, then in some sense,
yes, fighter A's "good health" or "good condition"
may mean "bad news" for fighter B,
but it does not mean fighter B must result in "bad health":
both fighters can be in excellent condition (in particular, before the actual fight).
Similarly, even during the physical fight,
fighter A can deliver a good punch (tesuji)
that is neutralized by an equally good block (counter tesuji?)
or evasive action (tai sabaki ).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W “Aji is bad”
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . 1 X O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W “Aji is good”
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X . X . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 2 X . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . 1 X O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

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