Ed, "good aji": Informally used when applying my meaning of "aji", this can be an abbreviation for "the aji is good for the player". If, however, a few others should use aji in a neutral meaning and write "good aji" to indicate the positive meaning for the given player, I guess I would understand their intention, too.

Cassandra, your use of aji shows the term used in contexts of additional attributes. In both cases, there is aji (in my meaning of the term) in the black moyo. In what you call “Aji is bad” the aji in the black moyo is more severe than in the less severe "Aji is good" case. IOW, your attributes "is good" or "is bad" want to express degrees of how severe the (negative) aji in the black moyo is.

I suppose that this example has more to do with White's group on the right than with what could be called Black's Moyo.

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

Well, for me “active participation” is … having my mind as clear as can be while reading in the bathtub or on the toilet

Mh… problem with this is that Ed would also have to add a comment at the end of the thread everytime he’d update the opening post, otherwise the thread wouldn’t turn up in the “unread posts”.


Grtz, 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?

I'm curious why you have to keep checking up on go. Short-term memory problem (know all about that!) or is go a cover for a commie terrorist group that needs constant surveillance?

Simple examples from Japanese texts of aji with good and bad specified:
味のいい手だ。
一手打ってもまだ味が悪い。

Examples of neutral usage:
この隅には味がある。
ここはまだあじが残る。

An example where a "good aji" move refers to a move such as a honte by you where you are either eliminating aji against yourself, or not creating fresh aji which a greedier alternative move might do (i.e. there is no complementary bad aji):

形は悪いがｲのﾂｷﾞが味がよい。(It's bad shape but the solid connection has better aji.

This latter (native) usage is rather common and so must have appeared umpteen million times in translated texts. This therefore on its own puts a huge question mark over RJ's usage. As I said earlier, it is immaterial whether he defines and/or is consistent with his own usage if he does not also do his reader the courtesy of explaining that his usage is non-standard.

Ed, you might as well proceed with your review. We all know by now that RJ redefines some/many/all (Japanese) go concepts. We can all decide by ourselves if we are willing to accept that. If you buy the book you buy his definitions ( at least ) during the reading. As you buy his English and typography. Long discussions about the pros and cons of these aspects derail the review. Better in another thread. IMHO.

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.

I do not presume usage in Japanese, but (for what I have said about usage of others) presume only usage in English, for which I rely on my memory mainly of what I have seen in the literature: there is no consistent preference for either negative or neutral use of aji. By defining my usage in my books, the reader knows about it. My books are not meant to be treatises on etymology and its stochastic evidence; therefore I do not inform in the books about every usage elsewhere. Such can be done in specialised books on etymology of go terms.

I use a particular go term not to celebrate its origin but to create a useful tool for more advanced go theory. Quite like many Western players dare to learn go theory without being aware of the complete Japanese etymology of related terms in Japanese.

If translations had been consistent and always precise during the previous 80 years, there would be a better ground for using terms imported from Japanese only in their Japanese meanings even in English.

This does not capture it well.

First of all, I try to use only a few terms with Japanese words as their names. In this book, the index has these (or I recall that a term occurs in the book) and variants of these terms (such as reverse sente):

aji, gote, ko, moyo, sente, shinogi.

As you can see, I use ony a few terms with a Japanese word. The index lists many more terms with English words.

I define (or have defined earlier) more terms than I redefine.

Clear and careful definitions are important for developing powerful theory (such as principles). If I had kept the (often great) ambiguity of verbal terms, I could not have developed great parts of the theory in my books and in particular this book.

The same applies to terms that I invent (in this book: primary and secondary aims; repeated in this book: valuable vs. neutral region) or reveal from the term-less fog of prior go theory knowledge (mutual settling fight).



Sure, but this misses a key point: a player's understanding remains much weaker without a good understanding of concepts related to aforementioned terms. E.g., I see many kyu players making strategic mistakes because they cannot distinguish valuable from neutral regions, because they are not aware of these as concepts during the middle game.

More reflection on the usage of "aji" and "possibilities" in my books reveals the following:

- I started using aji in the "having bad weaknesses" meaning already in my first book because I a) had been aware that there would be more to say about this meaning than about a "neutral possibilities" meaning (which I call "possibilities") and b) wanted to emphasise the more specific concept so that formulating theory for it would be easier.
- In my books, I use the term aji much more frequently than the term possibilities. The ratio varies between ca. 2 and 8. In Fighting Fundamentals, aji occurs about 8 times as often as possibilities.
- In all my so far nine books together, there are bold font principles as follows: 11 contain aji, 1 contains possibilities, 1 contains both aji and possibilities.
- So my anticipation has been fulfilled. The more specific "having bad weaknesses" meaning of aji is much more relevant for careful go theory than the "neutral possibilities" meaning or a combination of both meanings in the word aji. This is supported by another aspect: I do not recall explicit other principles relying on a "neutral possibilities" concept, as could be found in the other literature or the verbal heritage of go theory.
- Why is this so? For an empty board, or even for a large wide-open empty region of the board during the middle game, it is not particularly interesting to consider specific tactical possibilities. They become much more relevant when stones are situated closer to each other and evaluation of tactical sequences starts to make sense. In such contexts, it is also not far from evaluations of sequences becoming possible, and there we enter the "having bad weaknesses" meaning of aji.
- I do not see a necessity for other traditional phrases containing the word aji. E.g., "the stones have good aji" is ambiguous (What are the "good" aspects of the aji?) and demands explanation, such as "the stones are stable, thick and so contain only a few weaknesses [or: aji in the "having bad weaknesses" meaning]".
- Aji is meant to be a strategic concept, i.e., something for which analysis, strategic planning and principles must be developed. In comparison, it would be a great loss for go theory (and a player's knowledge and application of it) to treat aji only as a heap of textual phrases together with an advice "notice and use aji". The former can convey also advanced knowledge, while the latter keeps aji down to kyu level advice. - In order to let aji develop its full power as a strategic concept, a clear and specific definition is a better basis than an ambiguous variety of too many meanings associated with the word aji itself.

In conclusion, voluntarily restricting the meanings of the word aji and concentrating on the specific and frequently relevant meaning enables powerful usage as a strategic concept, as can be seen for the relative frequencies of strategic principles. The idea is to sacrifice immaterial information to concentrate on relevant and powerful knowledge.

Robert

You are overanalysing aji. It is not a strategic concept (as e.g. "feint to the left in order to attack on the right" would be). It just means aftertaste. It is just an attribute of a position, the same as thickness, weakness and umpteen other things.



Above, a move by White at A leaves good aji/aftertaste because it leaves one ko threat. A move at B leaves two and so is bad aji.

Of course aji can (and should) be incorporated into strategic thinking, but for that we need to add verbs or attributes (which Japanese does by use of terms such as ajibaru and ajitsuki) to explain how to use it, create it, eliminate it, etc. In other words there can be any number of strategies (some bad, such as gratuitous ajikeshi) which use aji in different ways. The strategy is the dog and aji is the tail. In your case you have the tail wagging the dog, linguistically at least.

That is why you are in danger of misleading people who are likely to read about aji in many other books where it is used in the conventional way.

I repeat that there is nothing wrong with you defining and using terms in your own way PROVIDED you alert the reader to the fact you are doing so. You now appear to have conceded that here, albeit obliquely. A line to that effect in the introduction to your books would also be a service to your readers. That is really the only point I am making.

Although it looks like a trivial thing to add a statement about aji (that there are also other uses elsewhere), I dislike such a writing approach because

- most books do not warn their readers in similar manners (e.g. stating that aji would be used only as an attribute and not as a strategic concept), so you expect more from my books than you suggest for other books,

- quite a few terms might get such a warning (if I include a warning for each term, a book is filled with boring trivia; if I include just one warning for all terms together, then it says too little to be meaningful, while I trust every reader's ability to recognise a possibly different use anyway).

Luckily, I am not overanalysing thickness, aji and other terms, but I first read something noteworthy about these two in the book Strategic Concepts, where I learnt that they are strategic concepts. This information has been very valuable for me, and of course I share it in my books and extend its scope by adding related principles etc. Very much knowledge is overlooked if either term is used only as an attribute of a global or local position.

How to use / exploit, create, eliminate it is important (and therefore the book discusses these actions). However, strategy for such is not generated out of the void. Strategy can also be derived from and be built on an analysis of aji.

It is immaterial whether aji has a literal meaning of aftertaste in Japanese. It is the first time I have seen the "after" mentioned; everybody in the West said "taste" when mentioning the suspected literal meaning. Luckily, we have not restricted ourselves by misleading emphasis of linguistics and viewing aji as a consequence of strategy. The converse is more powerful, because of the helpful principles and aji can be represented by better understood components (which include tactical move-sequences) than necessarily elliptical strategies.

I think you know I was mostly referring to your peculiar (very circular) argument based on counting your own uses of aji/possibilities.



Yes, because they use standard terms and native English.



You obviously don't remember what you read. Strategic Concepts of Go, page 5: "One of the characteristics of taste is that it lingers. It is this lingering quality which is really referred to when the word 'aji' is used as a term in go."

I have already said that aji is a factor to be taken into account in strategic planning, and I personally would feel comfortable enough with saying "aji is a strategic concept" as a useful kind of shorthand. But aji is not an absolute in the way that true strategic concepts (e.g. preponderance of force) are. We see this if we look wider. For example, if we look at Guo Tisheng's book "Strategic Fundamentals" (relying on memory for the title...) I think I'm right in saying that he does not once mention aji. You may say that's because he's Chinese, but Cho Chikun wrote a book (Beyond territory and moyos) of almost solid text which dealt with many aspects of go theory and I don't think he mentioned aji once. Yoda Norimoto wrote a book (I've forgotten the title) in somewhat similar vein, all text, and I don't think he mentioned aji once. And in that connection, note that SCG was not actually written by a Japanese pro but by a westerner.

As a theme (rather than a concept) aji of course runs through almost every commentary on go, and it is made use of in many strategies, but it is not glorified as a strategy. It's just a tool in the box.

Imagine go as a treasure hunt. You have a map - the board. X marks your goal. Elsewhere on the map are warnings such as "There be pirates here, oooo arrrr". It would therefore be a sensible strategy to take not just a shovel to dig up your treasure chest, but some weapons to scare off the pirates. The pirates will have therefore influenced your strategic planning. But you don't go from there and say "piracy is a strategic concept".

To an extent this is all playing with words, but it's what happens when someone (a non-native of both English and Japanese) tries to pin English go terms down too precisely and does not acknowledge the aji that creates.

Luckily, I forget such linguistic trivia quickly. This helps me to perceive the powerful scope of a strategic concept.



What do you mean by "absolute" here, please? - What is preponderance of force in Go?



And this I criticise and meet by raising aji to a strategic concept.



As a strategic concept, aji is much more than the weaknesses and their sequences exhibiting them. Aji can be embedded and linked to other concepts and methods of go theory.



Read and apply the theory I provide for aji, and you can recognise that it is not just playing with words. Start with determining secondary aims and developing general fighting strategy, as explained in the book. Warning: it may actually ease your thinking about planning fights:)



Don't use meta-discussion, when you can instead appreciate the book's contents.

EDIT: typo

Here is how I see the aji/no-aji issue:

Robert needed a word for one of his theory concepts, and for whatever reason he chose "aji". Maybe because it was close, maybe because at that time this is how he understood it, or whatever. Now, it so happened that this concept he needed a word for might be slightly different that what the japanese pros/literature think of as "aji". And so John, always the conservative in such things, has an issue with that. Probably rightly so.

But I'd just chuck it at an unfortunate choice of words.
Just like "global warming" - things would have been much easier if they used the term "global climate change" to begin with, as they do now.

Alas, Robert's usage is already published in his books, so it is hard to change now.
So I say - lets just move on. We all (even Robert) agree that there is a discrepancy between the use. The content of his books and his theory can certainly be used and appreciated and learned from even if some words he chooses are less than fortunate. As long as he uses these words consistently, and explains them properly, it should be just a very minor problem.

Or we can, of course, keep flogging the dead horse till the cows come home.

PS>
And speaking of flogging a dead horse - its 2+ weeks and 3 pages and over 50 posts into the "review", and I still know nothing about the book other than what paper it is printed on, which is pretty much the least important factor for me in deciding if it is worth the money. Just sayin'...

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

We should not be overly critical about typographic standards as it appears these days all too many books are published without having been "typeset" to say nothing of proofreading << sorry, but computer spell check detects only spellings that are non-words, not errors that are wrong word >>

If you really want professional looking books then after your usual word processor you want something like LaTex and after that, darn, I can't remember the name of the "compositor" program that follows LaTex. But THAT is how things like curly quotes (and direction different for start quote and end quote) are done.

Did you read any of the existing five reviews ?

Hi Mike,
When you say "all too many books,"

• How many Go books have you read ?
• Roughly, what percentage of the Go books you've read has "bad" typesetting or "bad" proofreading ? Would you say over 90%, about 50%, or less than 10% ?

Ed, maybe you should rename this thread: "Random arguments vaguely related to one of Robert's books."

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Nope.
I am reading *this* review.
If you are saying this review is about paper quality and punctuation, I will look for the other reviews.

However, having said that, i was interested how *you* will review the book, not just in the book contents. You and me - we have had some differences in the past, still unresolved, about the approach to teaching and stuff. Now I was hoping your review will give me more insights, especially your review of Robert's book. When I think about the teaching and theory, I see you on one end of the spectrum, while Robert is on the other end, and I am somewhere in the middle (leaning towards RJ, I guess.) So I am very curious what *you* specifically have to say about his methods. Thus my mild disappointment.

So sorry for the pushing I do here - its just a tease.
It is pretty much given for me that I will buy Robert's books, they are not expensive, and I have very high hopes for where is all his thinking going. Paper quality, punctuation, and unconventional terminology notwithstanding.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I don't think that this quite captures the real point at issue, which is not really about aji (and even less about RJ and JF). The deeper point is methodology of teaching, and since a certain controversial method pervades RJ's books, I think that qualifies, pace daal, as a vaguely related random point.

We have had many discussions about the pros and cons of the so-called oriental way of teaching (which RJ rubbishes as mystification but which I respect) and the western way (which RJ espouses, and which I also respect but only with a healthy dose of scepticism).

One of the foundations of my belief is mathematician Alfred Korzybski's treatment of General Semantics which he called, I think, the Structural Differential. I am a DDK in this area and only know Korzybski's work a little because he is the only westerner I've come across who makes sense of things like Lao Zi's "The Dao that can be spoken is not the true Dao; the name that can be named is not the true name" (and likewise Confucius's Rectification Names and Zen in general).

We appear to have a few people currently on this forum who do know about philosophy and related matters, so I may be able to nudge them into putting me straight (in layman's terms, please!), but for me the key point is as follows.

The universe is all-ecompassing reality (and by extension the go board is all-encompassing reality as regards go).

When we experience reality we can only know a tiny fragment of the whole. Well, that's also true, I think, of how most of us feel about a go position.

We are already one remove from reality. But if we then give our experience a label (a name such as 'aji' or a symbol) to help us deal with it, we are moving yet another level from reality.

A major point made by Korbzybski is that if we then make a statement about our label, which is at level L, we are not making it at the same level, but at level L+1. In other words, we are moving further away from reality each time with each level of abstraction. This means that if you use a label (level L), define it (L+1), expand it as a concept (L+2) and then try to do things like create a way of counting it (L+3), you are going a long, long way from a universe of which you had only a sliver of experience to start with. I believe Korzybski called this "insanity" and that he recommended that the ideal situation was when a teacher could point and stay silent (and the pupil understands and also stays silent, of course). Which is essentially the oriental way of teaching go, which may seem mystifying to some, but we know it works.

I believe RJ accepts it works; he just believes his way is faster and more widely applicable, but we await the proof of that. His books are the first step in his proof, I suppose. As I said, I respect that approach, but only with very quizzical eyebrows.

I honestly don't expect to be disabused but one pertinent question that I can't answer is whether it really matters if we move away from Reality with increasing levels of abstraction. Could it even be advantageous? I am a "conservative" in the sense that I am a sceptic. Being a sceptic, I simply believe it is better if the levels of abstraction are reduced. One way of reducing levels of abstraction is to accept fuzzy assessments and fuzzy definitions. Since I believe that humans are actually biologically designed to operate this way, I am a great fan of that approach, though I do also believe that fuzziness should not mean a random mish-mash - there should be a clear focus, or directionality, in the thought and only the edges should be fuzzy. (I believe that is supported by the theory of evolution.)

It is my view that the orientals have already achieved an acceptable level of fuzziness for aji and thickness and several other terms, and that we have to hesitate before we plunge into another level of abstraction.

Computer chess may seem to make the case for refining many abstraction levels down to numbers, but I have bought a lot of chess books recently related to this issue, and I have seen no cases of computer chess theory throwing up anything applicable to an average human's way of playing chess. In fact I'd regard ultra-deep tactics and endgame tables as essentially not applicable even to pro chess players.

So where chess leads, go will follow, with knobs on.

Bantari, even Sensei's is not that far from my usage:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Aji

"[...] aji roughly means possibilities left in a position. [...]

In reality, the usage of aji [...] is much narrower. Typically, a position is said to contain aji only if:

It already contains one or more existing groups; and
At least one of the groups has a weakness or defect that the opponent might exploit later."